Yes. And this is the story of a dismissed member of an international cabin crew.
Sometime in 2007 at Sydney Airport, Sally Madrid, a cabin crew member of Pacific Airways (PA) for 17 years, was caught in possession of some items (mineral water in bottle and some magazines) after alighting from her flight which came from Hong Kong. The goods were confiscated and turned over to PA’s airport services manager.
PA later requested Madrid to submit a written explanation regarding the goods caught in her possession and to show cause why no disciplinary action should be imposed onher. Madrid claimed that a magazine confiscated from her was not PA property and the other items were admitted to have been taken by another cabin crew member.
But PA immediately terminated her services for committing serious misconduct by removing company property without authorization. Hence, Madrid instituted a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims against PA.
However, PA asserted that the Labor Arbiter (LA) had no jurisdiction to hear the dispute as the incident had occurred outside the Philippines. But the LA ruled that he has jurisdiction over the case since PA was a licensed foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines.
Both parties elevated the case to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which sustained the jurisdiction of the LA over the case.
After PA’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC, the airline appealed the case to the Court of Appeals (CA), which sustained the jurisdiction of the LA and the NLRC in hearing the case.
The case was elevated to the Supreme Court (SC), and it ruled in the following tenor:
“We sustain both the Labor Arbiter’s and NLRC’s jurisdiction over the illegal dismissal case of _________. Article 224 [217] of the Labor Code provides that the Labor Arbiter has original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide termination disputes involving all workers. This provision must be read together with Section 10 of RA 8042 as amended by RA 1002, as well as Section 3 of RA 10022.
x x x
Under the foregoing definition, ________________ is considered an Overseas Filipino Worker (OFW). She has been engaged in a remunerated activity in a state where she is not a citizen. _________ cabin crew are all based in ________, and in fact ______ resided and leased an apartment in ___________
during her stint with _________. As an OFW faced with a termination dispute, ________ case may be heard and decided by the Arbiter under Article 224 [217] of the Labor Code in relation to RA 8042 as amended by RA 10022.”
The beauty of this story is that the SC finally ruled that Madrid had been illegally dismissed, and ordered PA to pay her full back wages and separation pay based on her salary rate at the time of her termination.
Next story please. And stay safe.
