11. International School Alliance Of Educators (ISAE) v Quisumbing, GR No.

128845, June 1, 2000

G.R. No. 128845 June 1, 2000

INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL ALLIANCE OF EDUCATORS (ISAE), petitioner,

vs.
HON. LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING in his capacity as the Secretary of Labor and Employment; HON.
CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO in his capacity as the Acting Secretary of Labor and Employment; DR.
BRIAN MACCAULEY in his capacity as the Superintendent of International School-Manila; and
INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, INC., respondents.

KAPUNAN, J.:

FACTS:

Private respondent International School, Inc., pursuant to Presidential Decree 732, is a domestic
educational institution established primarily for dependents of foreign diplomatic personnel and other temporary
residents. To enable the School to continue carrying out its educational program and improve its standard of
instruction, Section 2(c) of the same decree authorizes the School to employ its own teaching and management
personnel selected by it either locally or abroad, from Philippine or other nationalities, such personnel being exempt
from otherwise applicable laws and regulations attending their employment, except laws that have been or will be
enacted for the protection of employees.

The School hires both foreign and local teachers as members of its faculty, classifying the same into two:
(1) foreign-hires and (2) local-hires. The School employs four tests to determine whether a faculty member should
be classified as a foreign-hire or a local hire:

a. What is one's domicile?

b. Where is one's home economy?

c. To which country does one owe economic allegiance?

d. Was the individual hired abroad specifically to work in the School and was the School responsible for
bringing that individual to the Philippines?

Should the answer to any of these queries point to the Philippines, the faculty member is classified as a local hire;
otherwise, he or she is deemed a foreign-hire.

The School grants foreign-hires certain benefits not accorded local-hires.1avvphi1 These include housing,
transportation, shipping costs, taxes, and home leave travel allowance. Foreign-hires are also paid a salary rate
twenty-five percent (25%) more than local-hires. The School justifies the difference on two "significant economic
disadvantages" foreign-hires have to endure, namely: (a) the "dislocation factor" and (b) limited tenure.

When negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement were held on June 1995, petitioner International
School Alliance of Educators, "a legitimate labor union and the collective bargaining representative of all faculty
members" of the School, contested the difference in salary rates between foreign and local-hires. This issue, as well
as the question of whether foreign-hires should be included in the appropriate bargaining unit, eventually caused a
deadlock between the parties.

On September 7, 1995, petitioner filed a notice of strike. The failure of the National Conciliation and Mediation
Board to bring the parties to a compromise prompted the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to assume

1
jurisdiction over the dispute. the DOLE Acting Secretary, Crescenciano B. Trajano, issued an Order resolving the
parity and representation issues in favor of the School. Then DOLE Secretary Leonardo A. Quisumbing
subsequently denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration in an Order dated March 19, 1997.

Petitioner now seeks relief in this Court.

Petitioner claims that the point-of-hire classification employed by the School is discriminatory to Filipinos and that
the grant of higher salaries to foreign-hires constitutes racial discrimination.

The School disputes these claims and gives a breakdown of its faculty members, numbering 38 in all, with
nationalities other than Filipino, who have been hired locally and classified as local hires. The Acting Secretary of
Labor found that these non-Filipino local-hires received the same benefits as the Filipino local-hires.

The Acting secretary upheld the point-of-hire classification for the distinction in salary rates.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the point-of-hire classification employed by the School is discriminatory to Filipinos and that the
grant of higher salaries to foreign-hires constitutes racial discrimination.

RULING: YES

The Constitution in the Article on Social Justice and Human Rights exhorts Congress to "give highest priority to the
enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all people to human dignity, reduce social, economic,
and political inequalities." The very broad Article 19 of the Civil Code requires every person, "in the exercise of his
rights and in the performance of his duties, [to] act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and
good faith.

International law, which springs from general principles of law, likewise proscribes discrimination.

The Constitution specifically provides that labor is entitled to "humane conditions of work." These conditions are
not restricted to the physical workplace — the factory, the office or the field — but include as well the manner by
which employers treat their employees.

The Constitution also directs the State to promote "equality of employment opportunities for all." Similarly, the
Labor Code provides that the State shall "ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed." It would
be an affront to both the spirit and letter of these provisions if the State, in spite of its primordial obligation to
promote and ensure equal employment opportunities, closes its eyes to unequal and discriminatory terms and
conditions of employment.

Discrimination, particularly in terms of wages, is frowned upon by the Labor Code. Article 135, for example,
prohibits and penalizes the payment of lesser compensation to a female employee as against a male employee for
work of equal value. Article 248 declares it an unfair labor practice for an employer to discriminate in regard to
wages in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization.

Notably, the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, supra, in Article 7 thereof, provides:

The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and
favourable conditions of work, which ensure, in particular:

a. Remuneration which provides all workers, as a minimum, with:

2
 (i) Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without distinction of any
kind, in particular women being guaranteed conditions of work not inferior to those
enjoyed by men, with equal pay for equal work;

The foregoing provisions impregnably institutionalize in this jurisdiction the long honored legal truism of "equal pay
for equal work." Persons who work with substantially equal qualifications, skill, effort and responsibility, under
similar conditions, should be paid similar salaries. This rule applies to the School, its "international character"
notwithstanding.

The School contends that petitioner has not adduced evidence that local-hires perform work equal to that of foreign-
hires. The Court finds this argument a little cavalier. If an employer accords employees the same position and rank,
the presumption is that these employees perform equal work. This presumption is borne by logic and human
experience. If the employer pays one employee less than the rest, it is not for that employee to explain why he
receives less or why the others receive more. That would be adding insult to injury. The employer has discriminated
against that employee; it is for the employer to explain why the employee is treated unfairly.

The employer in this case has failed to discharge this burden. There is no evidence here that foreign-hires perform
25% more efficiently or effectively than the local-hires. Both groups have similar functions and responsibilities,
which they perform under similar working conditions.

While we recognize the need of the School to attract foreign-hires, salaries should not be used as an enticement to
the prejudice of local-hires. The local-hires perform the same services as foreign-hires and they ought to be paid the
same salaries as the latter. For the same reason, the "dislocation factor" and the foreign-hires' limited tenure also
cannot serve as valid bases for the distinction in salary rates. The dislocation factor and limited tenure affecting
foreign-hires are adequately compensated by certain benefits accorded them which are not enjoyed by local-hires,
such as housing, transportation, shipping costs, taxes and home leave travel allowances.

The Constitution enjoins the State to "protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare," "to afford labor full
protection." The State, therefore, has the right and duty to regulate the relations between labor and capital. These
relations are not merely contractual but are so impressed with public interest that labor contracts, collective
bargaining agreements included, must yield to the common good. Should such contracts contain stipulations that are
contrary to public policy, courts will not hesitate to strike down these stipulations.

In this case, we find the point-of-hire classification employed by respondent School to justify the distinction in the
salary rates of foreign-hires and local hires to be an invalid classification. There is no reasonable distinction between
the services rendered by foreign-hires and local-hires. The practice of the School of according higher salaries to
foreign-hires contravenes public policy and, certainly, does not deserve the sympathy of this Court

WHEREFORE, the petition is GIVEN DUE COURSE. The petition is hereby GRANTED IN PART. The Orders of
the Secretary of Labor and Employment dated June 10, 1996 and March 19, 1997, are hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE insofar as they uphold the practice of respondent School of according foreign-hires higher salaries than
local-hires.