Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 113 views

    Zialcita v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.

    Uploaded by

    Juan Carlos
    Zialcita was fired from her job as an airline stewardess after getting married, which violated the company's policy that stewardesses must remain single. She argued this violated the labor code's prohibition on terminating employment due to marriage. The airline cited another code section allowing standards for retirement in occupations like flight attendants. The court ultimately ruled the termination was improper. It found no applicable regulation allowing single-status requirements had been issued. Additionally, any such regulation would conflict with the code's broader protections against dismissing someone due to marriage.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Zialcita v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.

    Uploaded by

    Juan Carlos
    113 views1 page
    Zialcita was fired from her job as an airline stewardess after getting married, which violated the company's policy that stewardesses must remain single. She argued this violated the labor code's prohibition on terminating employment due to marriage. The airline cited another code section allowing standards for retirement in occupations like flight attendants. The court ultimately ruled the termination was improper. It found no applicable regulation allowing single-status requirements had been issued. Additionally, any such regulation would conflict with the code's broader protections against dismissing someone due to marriage.

    Original Description:

    Zialcita v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Zialcita was fired from her job as an airline stewardess after getting married, which violated the company's policy that stewardesses must remain single. She argued this violated the labor code's prohibition on terminating employment due to marriage. The airline cited another code section allowing standards for retirement in occupations like flight attendants. The court ultimately ruled the termination was improper. It found no applicable regulation allowing single-status requirements had been issued. Additionally, any such regulation would conflict with the code's broader protections against dismissing someone due to marriage.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    113 views1 page

    Zialcita v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.

    Uploaded by

    Juan Carlos
    Zialcita was fired from her job as an airline stewardess after getting married, which violated the company's policy that stewardesses must remain single. She argued this violated the labor code's prohibition on terminating employment due to marriage. The airline cited another code section allowing standards for retirement in occupations like flight attendants. The court ultimately ruled the termination was improper. It found no applicable regulation allowing single-status requirements had been issued. Additionally, any such regulation would conflict with the code's broader protections against dismissing someone due to marriage.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Zialcita v. 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."

    Article 136 provides, "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."

    ISSUE: Was Zialcita's termination proper?

    HELD: 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.

    You might also like