ZIALCITA, et al. VS.

PAL
Case No. RO4-3-3398-76, February 20, 1977 (Office of the President Decision)

FACTS:
Complainant Zialcita, an international flight stewardess of respondent, was discharge from the
service on account of her marriage.
In separating complainant Zialcita, respondent Philippine Air Lines invoked its policy or
regulation as follows:
“D. Flight Attendants.- Flight attendant applicant must be single. Flight attendants will be
automatically separated from employment in the event they subsequently get married..
Which is allegedly in conformity with the following provision of law:
“Art. 132. Facilities for women. – The Secretary of Labor shall establish standards that will
insure the safety and health of women employees. In appropriate cases, he shall be regulations
require any employer to xxx:
“(d) determine appropriate minimum age and other standards for retirement or termination in
special occupations such as those of flight attendants and the like.”
On the other hand, complainant questioned her termination on account of her marriage based
on the policy above quoted, invoking Article 136 of the Labor Code, which reads: x x
ISSUE:
Whether the termination of the services of complainant on account of marriage is legal.

RULING:
Of first impression is the incompatibility of the respondent’s policy or regulation with the codal
provision of law. Respondent is resolute in its contention that Article 136 of the Labor Code
applies only to women employed in ordinary occupations, like flight attendants, is fair and
reasonable, considering the peculiarities of their chosen profession.
We cannot subscribe to the line of reasoning pursued by respondents. All along, it knew that
the converted policy has already met its doom as early as March 13, 1973 when Presidential
Decree No. 148, otherwise known as the Women and Child Labor Law, was promulgated. But
for the timidity of those affected or their labor in challenging the validity of the policy, the
same was able to obtain a momentary reprieve. A close look at section 8 of said decree, which
amended paragraph (c ) of Section 12 of Republic Act No. 679, reveals that it is exactly the same
provision reproduced verbatim in Article 136 of the Labor Code, which was promulgated on
May 1, 1974 to take effect six months later, or on November 1, 1974.
It cannot be gainsaid that, with the reiteration of the same provision in the new Labor Code, all
policies and acts against it are deemed illegal and therefore abrogated. True, Article 132
enjoins the Secretary of Labor to establish standards that will ensure the safety and health of
women employees and in
appropriate cases shall by regulation require employers to determine appropriate minimum
standards for termination in special occupations, such as those of flight attendants.
It is logical to presume that, in the absence of said standards or regulations which are as yet to
be established, the policy of respondent against marriage is patently illegal.