Zialcita v.

Philippine Airlines

In Zialcita v. Philippine Airlines (RO4-3-3398-76, 1977), Claudine de Castro Zialcita, an

Philippine Airlines (PAL) defended Zialcita’s dismissal by citing a company policy that
required flight attendants to remain single, arguing that marriage would affect their
performance and availability for duty. The airline justified this rule under Article 132 of the
Labor Code, which grants the Secretary of Labor the authority to set standards for the safety
and health of women employees. PAL claimed that the policy was a legitimate management
prerogative designed to maintain efficiency and operational requirements in the airline
industry. Additionally, PAL contended that enforcing this rule was necessary for the nature of
the job and did not constitute discrimination. However, this argument was ultimately rejected,
as the policy was deemed unfairly discriminatory and in violation of Article 136 of the Labor
Code, which prohibits termination based on marriage.

Claudine de Castro Zialcita challenged her dismissal, arguing that Philippine Airlines’ policy
requiring flight attendants to remain single was discriminatory and illegal. She claimed that
the rule violated Article 136 of the Labor Code, which prohibits employers from
discriminating against women based on marriage. Zialcita asserted that her termination was
an unjust restriction on her right to marry, infringing on her constitutional rights and equal
employment opportunities. She maintained that marriage had no direct impact on her ability
to perform her duties as a flight stewardess and that PAL’s policy was an arbitrary and
oppressive condition of employment. Her claim was upheld, with the ruling affirming that
employment policies cannot infringe on fundamental rights or unfairly discriminate based on
marital status.

The Office of the President, which decided Zialcita v. Philippine Airlines (RO4-3-3398-76,
1977), ruled in favor of Claudine de Castro Zialcita, declaring that PAL’s policy of terminating
flight attendants upon marriage was discriminatory and void. The decision found that the
policy violated Article 136 of the Labor Code, which prohibits discrimination against women
based on marriage, and contradicted the constitutional guarantee of equal employment
opportunities. The court held that an employee’s marital status had no direct bearing on job
performance and that PAL’s justification under Article 132 of the Labor Code—which allows
the Secretary of Labor to set standards for women’s safety and health—did not justify the
discriminatory practice. This ruling reinforced workplace protections against marital
discrimination and was later cited in similar labor law cases.
Electruck Asia Inc v. Meris

In Electruck Asia, Inc. v. Meris (G.R. No. 147031, July 27, 2004), 55 night shift employees,
including Emmanuel M. Meris, were terminated on January 20, 1996, by Electruck Asia, Inc.,
a crane exporter in Mariveles, Bataan, due to alleged poor work performance, absenteeism,
and sleeping on duty. The company claimed this constituted serious misconduct, justifying
dismissal. However, the employees denied the allegations and filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal, arguing they were not given a chance to defend themselves, violating due
process. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC initially ruled in favor of Electruck Asia, but the
Court of Appeals reversed the decision, finding a lack of substantial evidence and due
process violations. The case then reached the Supreme Court, which affirmed the CA’s
ruling, declaring the dismissals illegal and ordering the payment of separation pay and full
back wages instead of reinstatement due to strained relations and the company's
insolvency.

Electruck Asia, Inc. defended its decision to terminate 55 night shift employees, including
Emmanuel M. Meris, by claiming that they were guilty of serious misconduct, specifically
poor work performance, absenteeism, and sleeping on duty during their shifts. The company
argued that these infractions justified dismissal under labor laws, as they affected
productivity and workplace discipline. Electruck Asia further contended that it had issued
warning letters to the employees before terminating them and that the dismissals were done
in accordance with company policies. The company also asserted that reinstating the
employees was no longer feasible due to strained relations and financial difficulties, making
separation pay a more appropriate remedy if the dismissal were found to be unlawful.

The employees, including Emmanuel M. Meris, challenged their dismissal by claiming that
Electruck Asia, Inc. terminated them without just cause and without due process. They
denied the allegations of poor work performance, absenteeism, and sleeping on duty,
arguing that the company failed to provide substantial evidence to support these claims.
They also asserted that they were not given a chance to explain their side before being
dismissed, which violated their right to due process under labor laws. As a result, they filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal, seeking reinstatement with full back wages or, alternatively,
separation pay if reinstatement was no longer possible.

In Electruck Asia, Inc. v. Meris (G.R. No. 147031, July 27, 2004), the Supreme Court
affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, which had reversed the earlier rulings of the Labor
Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The Court found that the
dismissals were illegal due to lack of substantial evidence supporting the claims of serious
misconduct and the violation of due process. The Court emphasized that the employees
were not given a fair opportunity to defend themselves before their dismissal. Given the
strained relations between the parties and Electruck Asia’s insolvency, the Supreme Court
ruled that reinstatement was no longer feasible and instead awarded the employees
separation pay equivalent to one month’s salary for each year of service, along with full back
wages from the time of their dismissal until the finality of the decision.
BRENDO D. MERIN vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

In Brendo D. Merin v. National Labor Relations Commission (G.R. No. 171790, October 17,
2008), Brendo Merin, an ordinary seaman employed by Great Southern Maritime Services
Corporation (GSM) for its principal IMC Shipping Co., Pte. Ltd., was repatriated from the
vessel MT "Selandang Permata" after about three months of service due to alleged
infractions. Merin contested his dismissal, claiming it was illegal since previous infractions
had been condoned. The Labor Arbiter initially sided with him, ruling the repatriation illegal.
However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, finding
that Merin’s actions justified his dismissal. The Court of Appeals upheld the NLRC’s ruling,
and the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, emphasizing that the totality of Merin’s
infractions, including past violations, was a valid basis for the dismissal.

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), in Brendo D. Merin v. National Labor
Relations Commission (G.R. No. 171790, 2008), upheld the dismissal of Brendo Merin,
asserting that his repatriation was based on just cause. The NLRC found that Merin had
committed infractions during his employment, including violations of company rules and poor
conduct, which justified his dismissal. It argued that the totality of Merin’s actions throughout
his employment, including previous infractions that had been condoned, were valid grounds
for dismissal. The NLRC emphasized that Merin’s repatriation was not a case of illegal
dismissal, as the employer had reasonable cause to terminate his employment based on his
behavior and performance.

Brendo Merin contested his dismissal by claiming that his repatriation was illegal and that
there was no just cause for his termination. He argued that the infractions cited by the
employer were minor and had been previously condoned by the company. Merin maintained
that he was not given proper notice or a fair opportunity to defend himself before his
dismissal, which violated his right to due process. He also emphasized that his prior
infractions had not been treated as grounds for dismissal and that the decision to repatriate
him was unjust. Merin sought reinstatement or, alternatively, compensation for illegal
dismissal.

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC), which upheld Merin's dismissal. The Court found that the totality of Merin's
infractions during his employment, including misconduct while aboard the vessel, provided
just cause for his repatriation and dismissal. The Court emphasized that even though some
of Merin's prior infractions had been condoned, they were still relevant in assessing whether
the dismissal was justified. The employer's decision to terminate Merin was based on
reasonable grounds, and the Court ruled that his actions violated company policies, leading
to the lawful termination of his employment.

The Supreme Court also upheld that the employer had complied with due process
requirements in terminating Merin, giving him proper notice of the charges and allowing him
to respond to the allegations. The Court clarified that Merin’s dismissal did not constitute
illegal dismissal because the employer had substantiated the grounds for his termination and
followed the necessary procedural requirements. As a result, the Court affirmed the NLRC's
decision and dismissed Merin's claims for illegal dismissal, reinforcing the importance of
considering the totality of an employee’s conduct when determining whether dismissal is
warranted.