Zialcita vs Philippine Airlines, Inc.

FACTS:

Zialcita is a stewardess of PAL. She was fired from work because she had gotten married. PAL argued and
cited its policy that stewardesses must be single. The policy also states that subsequent marriage of a
stewardess shall automatically terminate employment.

Zialcita anchored on Article 136 of the Labor Code. PAL sought refuge from Article 132.

Article 132 provides, "Article 132. Facilities for women. The Secretary of Labor and Employment shall
establish standards that will ensure the safety and health of women employees. In appropriate cases, he
shall, by regulations, require any employer to: To determine appropriate minimum age and other
standards for retirement or termination in special occupations such as those of flight attendants and the
like."

ISSUE:

Whether or not Zialcitas termination is proper?

LAW:

Article 136. Stipulation against marriage. It shall be unlawful for an employer to require as a condition of
employment or continuation of employment that a woman employee shall not get married, or to stipulate
expressly or tacitly that upon getting married, a woman employee shall be deemed resigned or separated,
or to actually dismiss, discharge, discriminate or otherwise prejudice a woman employee merely by
reason of her marriage."

CASE HISTORY:

This case is decided by the office of the President.

RESOLUTION:

The termination was improper. First of all, during the time Zialcita was terminated, no regulation had yet
been issued by the Secretary of Labor to implement Article 132. Second, even assuming that the Secretary
of Labor had already issued such a regulation and to the effect that stewardesses should remain single,
such would be in violation of Article 136 of the Labor Code.
Article 136's protection of women is broader and more powerful than the regulation provided under
Article 132.

OPINION:

The policy of the Philippines Airlines which states that flight attendant applicant must be single and will be
automatically separated from employment in the event that they will subsequently get married is
discriminatory and unconstitutional and should not be served as an example to other companies or
establishments.