CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS, LTD., PETITIONER, VS.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

COMMISSION AND MARTHA Z. SINGSON, RESPONDENTS.
F: originally from 2 petitions for certiorari R65 w/ SC → consolidated and referred to CA coz of St. Martin’s
doctrine
• Cathay – international airline providing flight services. Martha Singson – cabin attendant of Cathay
hired in PH on Sept. 24 1990, home base in Hong Kong
• Aug 26 1991 – Singson was scheduled for 5d flight to London but was unable as she was
fatigued/exhausted from her transfer to a new apartment w/ her husband
• Aug 29 1991 – visited Dr. Emer Fahy, company doctor diagnosed her to be suffering from a moderately
severe asthma attack + advised to take Ventolin nebulizer and increase medication she was taking
Prednisone (steroid)
◦ Findings conveyed to Dr. John Fowler, Principal Medical Officer – evaluated as unfit for flying due
to medical condition
• Sept 3 1991 – Singson visited Dr. Fahy who stated she was vastly improved
◦ LATER THAT DAY – Cabin Crew Manager Robert Nipperess told Singson that she was terminated
on medical grounds based on recommendation of Dr. Fowler/Fahy
◦ MARTHA: surprised by it but acknowledged it → asked Nipperess about possible employment for
ground duties → was advised to meet w/ certain personnel who knew of employment requirements
and to wait a possible offer
• Dec 20 1991 – Filed Illegal Dismissal case w/ LA against Cathay + prayer for
actual/moral/exemplary/attys fees
• Nipperess and Fowler appeared as witnesses for Cathay
◦ NIPPERESS – decision was made upon recommendation of Dr. Fowler
◦ FOWLER: her asthma affliction rendered her unfit to fly; aviation risks(asthma disabled her from
properly performing her cabin crew functions, specifically her air safety functions.)
• Singson and Dr. Lazo, doctor specializing in internal medicine and pulmonary diseases, for R witnesses
◦ SINGSON: denied being afflicted with asthma at any point in her life
◦ LAZO: at time of his examination, Singson was of normal condition; affirmed Singson
• LA: ID. Pay Singson HK$530K as backwages + 54K undisputed benefits due her, 100K actual damages,
168K attys fees + Reinstate as airline stewardess w/o loss of seniority rights, etc
• NLRC: REVERSED; valid dismissal
◦ Testimony of Fowler and Medical records of Fahy as newly-discovered evidence → Singson indeed
afflicted w/ asthma
◦ revoked damages, backwages BUT retain her services as ground stewardess noting that she was
reinstated on March 12 1993
• MR by both DENIED → both went to SC but referred to CA
• CA: REVERSED NLRC, back to LA
◦ 1) Fowler’s opinion not based on his own examination, based on Dr. Fahy’s – hearsay
◦ 2) Omnibus Rules of LC, Sec 8 Rule I Book VI – requires certification by competent public health
authority when disease is reason for separation for service
◦ 3) NLRC erroneously relied on Dr. Fahy’s affidavit tho not presented as witness
◦ 4) R passed medical examination for flight cabin attentands, International Labor Organization’s
Health and Safety in Civil Aviation examination – fit for flight-related service
◦ 5) Cathay failed to adequately prove health standards required in aviation and the non-qualification
of flight-attendants with asthma
• Cathay now argues CA should not look into factual findings since R65
W/N Dismissal was valid? YES
• RE: procedural
◦ P’s certiorari assailed NLRC judgment granting choice to R to continue employment
◦ R’s certiorari attacked NLRC decision declaring her dismissal valid
 ◦ SC: CA needed to examine the evidence anew to determine if factual findings of NLRC was
supported or not
• RE: not presenting Dr. Fahy
◦ SC: valid. Labor cases do not strictly follow rules of evidence.-→ not subject to the technical rules
of evidence, liberal stance for procedural deficiencies in labor cases
◦ ALSO non-presentation was explained: no longer connected with Cathay and had transferred
residence to Ireland
◦ Submission of additional evidence before NLRC is nt prohibited as well as the latter could submit
counter-evidence
• RE: Dismissal STILL NOT VALID
◦ Sec. 8, Rule 1, Book VI IRR – requires certification by competent public health authority that
disease is of such nature or at a stage that it cannot be cured w/in a period of 6 months even with
proper medical treatment
◦ CAB: no certification presented; dismissed solely on recommendation of its company doctors
▪ no proof that the asthma could not be cured in 6 mos even with proper medical treatment
▪ Singson even returned to the clinic 5 days after her examination and was told her condition
vastly improved
◦ Clause 22 of Conditions of Service entered into with Singson – not refuge for Cathay as well
▪ tho doesn’t require competent public health authority, still obliged to follow several steps before
terminating
▪ Clause 22. Sick Leave. - xxxx In case of serious illness the Company will grant sick leave with
full pay for the first three months and with 2/3 of pay for the fourth month. Consideration will be
given to granting the cabin crew further sick leave, either with pay or off pay up to a further
two months, or retiring the cabin crew on medical ground
▪ CAB: did not give her the 4 months LOA, sick leave first. Only after those 4 months does the
option to retire on medical ground arise → she was immediately dismissed in this case

• RE: Damages – valid

◦ moral and exemplary granted → summarily dismissed Singson based only on recommendation of
medical officers AND only 1 examination
▪ did not even make token offer for Singson to take LOA as provided in its Contract of Service
CA AFFIRMED