Triple A alleged that sometime in 2017, he was hired as a Cleaning Laborer by Saraya Al Jazerah Contracting Est. (the foreign employer), through its agent, Bison Management Corporation, under a two-year employment contract with a monthly salary of One Thousand Five Hundred Saudi Riyal. He was deployed to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) on October 18, 2017 and commenced work thereafter.
Triple A narrated that In January of 2019 — after working for fifteen months, he underwent a routine medical examination and was found positive for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). On this basis, the foreign employer terminated his employment because under the laws of the KSA, an HIV-positive individual is considered unfit to work.
After his repatriation to the Philippines on February 8, 2019, Triple A filed a complaint on March 1, 2019 for illegal dismissal, discrimination, money claims, damages, attorney’s fees, and legal interest against the employer.
The Office of the Labor Arbiter dismissed triple A’s complaint for illegal dismissal but ruled that he was entitled to his unpaid salary, vacation leave pay, and attorney’s fees. In its Decision, the Office of the Labor Arbiter took cognizance of KSA’s policy of disallowing HIV-positive persons for employment. The Office of the Labor Arbiter added that Republic Act No. 8504 or the “Philippine AIDS Prevention and Control Act of 1998” is a local law that should apply only within the Philippines and not to KSA.
Triple A filed a Memorandum of Partial Appeal before the National Labor Relations Commission, asserting that he was illegally dismissed from employment.
The Commission resolved the partial appeal in triple A’s favor and declared that he was illegally dismissed.
The motion for reconsideration filed by the employer was denied by the Commission.
Thus, the employer filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals denied the employer’s petition since it did not find any abuse of discretion on the part of the Commission. The Court of Appeals agreed with the Commission in that Philippine law governs the terms of the employment contract as well as the rights of the employee under the principle of lex loci contractus. The Court of Appeals also cited Section 35 of Republic Act No. 8504, which provides that discrimination in any form from pre-employment to post-employment, including hiring, promotion or assignment, based on the actual, perceived or suspected HIV status of an individual is prohibited. Termination from work on the sole basis of actual, perceived or suspected HIV status is deemed unlawful. The Court of Appeals reasoned that since the law categorically prohibits the use of a person’s HIV-positive condition as a ground for dismissal, no valid cause attended triple A’s termination from employment.
The Court of Appeals denied the employer’s motion for reconsideration.
Thus, the employer filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court assailing the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals.
Was triple A illegally dismissed from employment?
The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative.
The Supreme Court began by highlighting the State’s promise to protect Filipino workers, whether here or abroad, under Section 3 of Article XIII of the Constitution. The Court stated that the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure extends to Filipino overseas contract workers. Employees are not stripped of their security of tenure when they move to work in a different jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court noted the employer’s invocation of the principle of pacta sunt servanda based on the “Agreement on Labor Cooperation for General Workers Recruitment and Employment Between the Department of Labor and Employment of the Republic of the Philippines and the Ministry of Labor and Social Development of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia” (Agreement on Labor Cooperation), which provides that the Department of Labor and Employment of the Republic of the Philippines shall ensure that the recruited general workers satisfy health requirements and are free of all communicable diseases by virtue of thorough medical examinations through reliable medical facilities accredited by both governments.
However, the Supreme Court found the employer’s argument untenable. According to the Court, such argument was belied by the employer’s own representation that prior to his deployment and as part of the requirements, triple A underwent a medical examination and received a clean bill of health and that he acquired HIV after working in the KSA for more than one year.
The Court remarked that it will not engage in an academic discussion on the principle of pacta sunt servanda where the case is essentially one for illegal dismissal of an OFW.
The Court rather stressed that the principle of lex loci contractus applies in that Philippine laws generally govern overseas employment contracts. The Court also stated that as a narrow exception, the parties may agree that a foreign law shall govern, but subject to the concurrence of the following requisites:
- That it is expressly stipulated in the overseas employment contract that a specific foreign law shall govern;
- That the foreign law invoked must be proven before the courts pursuant to the Philippine rules on evidence;
- That the foreign law stipulated in the overseas employment contract must not be contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy of the Philippines; and
- That the overseas employment contract must be processed through the POEA.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that the first and fourth requisites were present. However, it discovered that the more important second and third requisites were absent.
Although the employer was able to present the Agreement on Labor Cooperation, certain documents, and a news article about a KSA envoy seeking stricter HIV/AIDS testing for OFWs, the Court underscored that a copy of the purported foreign law was not presented.
The Court added that even if the KSA policy which disallows HIV-positive persons from employment were truly undeniable and all over the internet, prevailing jurisprudence dictates that if the foreign law stipulated is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy, then Philippine laws shall govern.
The Court continued that contractual stipulation is not a bar to applicability of Philippine law. The labor relationship between an OFW and his or her foreign employer as much affected with public interest and that the otherwise applicable Philippine laws and regulations cannot be rendered illusory by the parties agreeing upon some other law to govern their relationship.
The Supreme Court reminded that Republic Act No. 8504 had already been repealed by Republic Act No. 11166 at the time of triple A’s repatriation. Section 49 (a) of Republic Act No. 11166 makes it unlawful for employees to be terminated from work on the sole basis of their HIV status.
The Court stated that since Philippine law categorically prohibits the use of a person’s HIV-positive condition as a ground for dismissal, the inescapable conclusion is that there was no valid cause to terminate triple A, and that doing so amounted to illegal dismissal.
The Court observed that while it is true that disease may be a ground for termination under Article 299 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, the employer in this case conceded that an HIV-positive condition is not yet an illness/disease.
The Court concluded that since there was no other reason proffered for triple A’s dismissal apart from his HIV status, the Court upheld the Court of Appeals ruling that the Commission did not commit grave abuse of discretion in finding that triple A was illegally dismissed.
Further reading:
- Bison Management Corp. v. AAA, G.R. No. 256540, February 14, 2024.
