Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
FACTS:
1) Petitioner Saudi Arabian Airlines is a 5)November 8,2007 - Respondents filed a
foreign corporation established and existing Complaint with the Labor Arbiter against
under the Royal Decree No. M/24 of Jeddah, Saudia and its officers for illegal dismissal and
who hired Respondents as flight attendants. for underpayment, along with moral and
After undergoing seminars required by the exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.
Philippine Overseas Employment Petitioner Airlines contests the Labor Arbiter’s
Administration for deployment overseas, as jurisdiction, as the contract’s points referred to
well as training modules offered by Saudia, foreign law and that Respondents had no cause
Respondents became Temporary and then of action since they already voluntarily
eventually Permanent Flight Attendants; they resigned.
entered into the necessary Cabin Attendant
Contracts with Saudi. 6) Executive Labor Arbiter dismissed the
complaint, but on appeal the NLRC reversed
2) Respondents were released from service on the Labor Arbiter’s decision and denied
separate dates in 2006; claimed that such Petitioner Airlines’ Motion for Reconsideration,
release was illegal since the basis of hence the current appeal.
termination of contract was solely because they
were pregnant. They claim that they had RELEVANT ISSUE:
informed Saudia of their respective WON the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC has
pregnancies and had gone through the jurisdiction over Saudi Arabian Airlines and
necessary procedures to process their apply Philippine jurisdiction over the dispute?
maternity leaves and while initially, Saudia had YES. Summons were validly served on
given its approval, they ultimately reneged and Saudia and jurisdiction over it validly
rather required them to file for resignation. acquired.