PATRICIA HALAGUEA, MA. ANGELITA L. PULIDO, MA. TERESITA P.

SANTIAGO, MARIANNE V. KATINDIG, BERNADETTE A. CABALQUINTO,

LORNA B. TUGAS, MARY CHRISTINE A. VILLARETE, CYNTHIA A.
STEHMEIER, ROSE ANNA G. VICTA, NOEMI R. CRESENCIO, AND OTHER
FLIGHT ATTENDANTS OF PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, PETITIONERS, VS.
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES INCORPORATED, RESPONDENT. G.R. No. 172013,
October 02, 2009
PERALTA, J:
TOPIC: Jurisidiction of the Labor Tribunals; Question of constitutionality of
a provision of a CBA.
FACTS:
Herein petitioners are employed as female attendants of
respondent Philippine Airlines Incorporated (PAL), they were also
members of Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the The
Philippines (FASAP), the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of
the flight attendants. On July 2011, FASAP entered into a CBA with the
PAL, Section 144 thereof provides that the compulsory retirement age of
a female attendant shall be 55, while 60 for the males. Petitioners filed a
Special Civil Action for Declaratory Relief with RTC of Makati, alleging the
unconstitutionality of the provision for being discriminatory. The RTC in
upholding its jurisdiction ruled that Section 144 is unconstitutional as it
was discriminatory, the allegations in the petition do not make out a
labor dispute arising out of employer-employee relationship, nor does not
involve a claim against the respondent.
On Appeal with the Court of Appeals, it reversed the decision of the
RTC, ruling that the RTC has no jurisdiction to hear the case as it has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter, following the prayer of the
respondents that it is the labor courts that has jurisdiction over the issue.
Hence, the aggrieved petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari
with the SC, alleging that the CA erred in ruling that the subject matter is
a labor dispute.
ISSUE:
Whether the question of constitutionality of Section 144 of the CBA
falls within the jurisdiction of the labor courts.
HELD:
NO, as jurisdiction is determined on the basis of the material
allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief prayed for, it

was clearly spelled out in the complaint of herein petitioners, as they

prayed that Section 144 of the CBA to be declared unconstitutional. As
the subject is incapable of pecuniary estimation and an ordinary, the RTC
has jurisdiction to hear the case, and beyond the jurisdiction of the labor
tribunals.
As the said issue cannot be resolved by applying the Labor Code,
but rather by application of the Constitution, Labor statues, Law on
Contracts and the Convention n the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against women, such power to apply and interpret said
sources of law is within the jurisdiction of the RTC, a court of general
jurisdiction.
DOCTRINE:
Not every case arising out of employer-emplyee relationship falls
within the jurisdiction of the Labor Courts, actions in which such
relationship is merely incidental and the cause of action precedes from a
different source, it would divest jurisdiction from the Labor Courts.