Int’t School Alliance of Educators (ISAE) v. Hon. Leonardo Quisumbing  Pets. filed a notice to strike.
Pets. filed a notice to strike. Upon failure of the Nat’l Conciliation and Mediation
June 1, 2000 | Kapunan, J. | International Conventions, Recommendations
Digester: Roa, Annamhel Monique C.
SUMMARY: Respondent School hires both foreign and local teachers, with the former
enjoying higher wages, among other benefits. Petitioner, a labor union and collective
bargaining representative of all faculty members of said school, contend it is
discriminatory for foreign-hires to be paid higher wages than local-hires,
notwithstanding certain differences in their circumstances. A question also arose as to
whether or not both the foreign- and local-hires belonged to the same bargaining unit.
The Court found for petitioners, emphasizing “equal work for equal pay” as espoused
by both local laws and generally accepted principles of international law, and decreed
the foreign and local hires to be belonging to different bargaining units.
DOCTRINE: The State adopts the generally accepted principles of international law.
Labor disputes about discrimination as to pay must be decided with proper
consideration of the principles mandating fair wages and equal remuneration for work
of equal value w/o distinction of any kind.
FACTS:
 Private respondent International School Inc, pursuant to PD 732, is a domestic
educational institution established primarily for dependents of foreign diplomatic
personnel and other temporary residents. Sec 2(c) of the PD 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, classifying them into: 1) foreign-
hires, and 2) local-hires. Their four tests to determine whether a faculty member
should be classified as a foreign-hire consist of: 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 Phils? If the answer to any of
these queries be the Phils, the employee is a local-hire.
 Foreign-hires are granted certain benefits not accorded local-hires e.g. housing,
transportation, shipping costs, taxes, and home leave travel allowance, and salary
rate 25% more than local-hires. The School justifies the difference on two (2)
“significant economic disadvantages” foreign-hires have to endure: a) the
“dislocation factor” and b) limited tenure. Justification for compensation scheme =
measure to remain competitive on an int’l level in terms of attracting competent
professionals in the field of int’l education.
 Pet. ISAE is a legitimate labor union and collective bargaining representative of all
faculty members. Upon negotiation of a new CBA, they contested the difference in
salary rates. During the same, an issue about WON the foreign-hires should be
included in the bargaining unit was also raised.
Board to bring the parties to a compromise, the DOLE assumed jurisdiction.
DOLE Acting Sec resolved the issues in favor of the school. DOLE Sec
Quisumbing denied petitioner’s MFR, hence this petition.
 Pet. now claims that the point-of-hire classification employed by the school is 1)
discriminatory to Filipinos and that 2) the grant of higher salaries to foreign-hires
constitutes racial discrimination.
 Justification of Acting Sec in ruling in favor of the School: 1) “equal pay for equal
work” does not apply because foreign-hires are required to deal w/ different
nationalities and different cultures; 2) DOLE takes cognizance of the existence of a
system of salaries and benefits accorded to foreign hire personnel, agreeing that
certain amenities will have to be provided to entice these people to render services
in the Phils.; 3) foreign-hires have a limited contract of employment, as opposed to
local-hires who enjoy security of tenure; 4) the equal protection clause is not
violated because the classification is reasonable.
RULING: Petition granted in part. The Orders of the Secretary of Labor and
employment are hereby reversed and set aside insofar as they uphold the practice of
respondent School of according foreign-hires higher salaries than local-hires.
Whether the local-hires should be entitled to the same wages as the foreign-hires
– Yes.
 The Constitution and other Phil. Laws espouse policies against inequality and
discrimination. (Reference to the 1987 Consti Art. on Social Justice, and Art. 19 of
the NCC. International law, which springs from general principles of law,
likewise proscribes discrimination. General principles of law include
principles of equity, i.e., the general principles of fairness and justice, based
on the test of what is reasonable. The UDHR, the Int’l Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Int’l Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention against
Discrimination in Education, the Convention Concerning Discrimination in
Respect of Employment and Occupation all embody the general principle
against discrimination. The Phils., through its Constitution, has
incorporated this principle as part of its national laws.
 The “humane conditions of work” mandate in the Constitution extends to the
manner by which employers treat their employees. Similar to the constitutional
mandate to promote “equality of employment opportunities for all,” the LC
provides that the State shall “ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex,
race or creed.”
 The Int’l Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, in Art. 7, provides:
“xxx The State Parties to the present Covenant… [shall] ensure in particular a) Remuneration
which provides all workers, as a minimum, with: i) Fair wages and equal remuneration
for work of equal value w/o 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.”
 Thus, “equal pay for equal work” is institutionalized in this jurisdiction. Persons
who work with substantially equal qualifications, skill, effort and responsibility,
under similar conditions, should be paid similar salaries.
 The school cannot invoke the need to entice foreign-hires to rationalize the
distinction in salary rates w/o violating the principle of equal work for equal pay, to
the prejudice of local-hires. The dislocation factor and limited tenure affecting
foreign-hires are adequately compensated by certain benefits accorded them which
are not enjoyed by local-hires (housing, et al.) In other words, there is no
reasonable distinction between the services rendered by foreign-hires and local-
hires. Thus, the classification it is invalid.

Whether the foreign-hires belong to the same bargaining unit as the local-hires –
No.
 A bargaining unit is “a group of employyes of a given employer, comprised of all or
less than all of the entire body of employees, consistent with equity to the employer
indicated (sic) to be the best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the
parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the law.” Factors in
determining the appropriate collective bargaining unit: 1) the will of the employees,
2) affinity and unity of the employees’ interest, such as substantial similarity of
work and duties, or similarity of compensation and working conditions, 3) prior
collective bargaining history, and 4) similarity of employment statues.
 The basic test of an asserted bargaining unit’s acceptability is WON it is
fundamentally the combination which will best assure to all employees to the
exercise of their collective bargaining rights.
 It does not appear that foreign-hires have indicated their intention to be grouped
together with local-hires for the purposes of collective bargaining. Collective
bargaining history also shows that these groups have always been treated separately.
To include foreign-hires in a bargaining unit with local-hires would not assure
either group the exercise of their respective collective bargaining units.

NOTES:
 As to the contention of respondent School that the petitioners have failed to
adduce evidence that local-hires perform work equal to that of foreign hire, the
Court finds that if an employer accords employees the same position and rank, the
presumption is that these employees perform equal work. It is for the employer to
explain why the employee is treated unfairly.