G.R. No. 198587 - SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES (SAUDIA) AND BRENDA J. BETIA, VS. MA. JOPETTE M. REBESENCIO, MONTASSAH B. SACAR-ADIONG, ROUEN RUTH A. CRISTOBAL AND LORAINE S. SCHNEIDER-CRUZ.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, if the Air Hostess becomes pregnant at any time during the term of this contract, this shall render her employment contract as void and she will be terminated due to lack of medical fitness . [18] (Emphasis supplied) In their Comment on the present Petition, [19] respondents emphasized that the Unified Contract took effect on September 23, 2006 (the first day of Ramadan), [20] well after they had filed and had their maternity leaves approved. Ma. Jopette filed her maternity leave application on September 5, 2006. [21] Montassah filed her maternity leave application on August 29, 2006, and its approval was already indicated in Saudia's computer system by August 30, 2006. [22] Rouen Ruth filed her maternity leave application on September 13, 2006, [23] and Loraine filed her maternity leave application on August 22, 2006. [24] Rather than comply and tender resignation letters, respondents filed separate appeal letters that were all rejected. [25] Despite these initial rejections, respondents each received calls on the morning of November 6, 2006 from Saudia's office secretary informing them that their maternity leaves had been approved. Saudia, however, was quick to renege on its approval. On the evening of November 6, 2006, respondents again received calls informing them that it had received notification from Jeddah, Saudi Arabia that their maternity leaves had been disapproved. [26] Faced with the dilemma of resigning or totally losing their benefits, respondents executed handwritten resignation letters. In Montassah's and Rouen Ruth's cases, their resignations were executed on Saudia's blank letterheads that Saudia had provided. These letterheads already had the word "RESIGNATION" typed on the subject portions of their headings when these were handed to respondents. [27] On November 8, 2007, respondents filed a Complaint against Saudia and its officers for illegal dismissal and for underpayment of salary, overtime pay, premium pay for holiday, rest day, premium, service incentive leave pay, 13 th month pay, separation pay, night shift differentials, medical expense reimbursements, retirement benefits, illegal deduction, lay-over expense and allowances, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. [28] The case was initially assigned to Labor Arbiter Hermino V. Suelo and docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 00-11-12342-07. Saudia assailed the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. [29] It claimed that all the determining points of contact referred to foreign law and insisted that the Complaint ought to be dismissed on the ground of forum non conveniens . [30] It added that respondents had no cause of action as they resigned voluntarily. [31] On December 12, 2008, Executive Labor Arbiter Fatima Jambaro-Franco rendered the Decision [32] dismissing respondents' Complaint. The dispositive portion of this Decision reads: WHEREFORE, premises' considered, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING the instant complaint for lack of jurisdiction/merit.