International School Alliance of Educators vs
Quisumbing
Facts:
Petitioners are employees (teachers) of respondent's school who are
receiving less than their counterparts hired abroad and now cry discrimination.
The school contends that a foreign-hire would necessarily uproot himself from
his home country, leave his family and friends, and take the risk of devaiting
from a promising career path - all for the purpose of pursuing his profession
as an educator, but this time in a foreign land and such person does not enjoy
security of tenure as well so the compensation scheme is simply the School's
adaptive measure to remain competitive on an international level in terms of
attracting competent pruofessionals in the field of international education.
The school's classification between foreign-hires and local-hires was in the
point-of-hire so foreigners hired locally are being classified as local-hires.
Petitioner claims that such classification is discriminatory to Filipinos and that
the grant of higher salaries to foreign-hires constitutes racial
discrimination. On the other hand, the Acting Secretary of Labor upheld the
point-of hire classification for the distinction in salary rates. He also
stated that The Union cannot also invoke the equal protection clause to justify
its claim of parity. It is an established principle of constitutional law that
the guarantee of equal protection of the laws is not violated by legislation or
private covenants based on reasonable classification. A classification is
reasonable if it is based on substantial distinctions and apply to all members
of the same class. Verily, there is a substantial distinction between foreign
hires and local hires, the former enjoying only a limited tenure, having no amenities
of their own in the Philippines and have to be given a good compensation
package in order to attract them to join the teaching faculty of the School.
Hence the present petition.
Issue:
WON the Acting secretary erred in upholding the reasonableness of the
classification made by respondent-school.
Held:
Yes. That public policy abhors inequality and discrimination is beyond
contention. Our Constitution and laws reflect the policy against these evils.
The Constitution 8 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.
The Constitution 18 also directs the State to promote "equality of
employment opportunities for all." Similarly, the Labor Code 19 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.
The Constitution enjoins the State to "protect the rights of workers
and promote their welfare," 25 "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.