G.R. No. L-33705 - Air Line Pilots Association of the Philippines vs. Court of Industrial Relations

Petition L-33705 filed by ALPAP (Gaston) challenged the Court of Industrial Relations’ jurisdiction in determining:

Which set of officers elected by two competing factions (Gaston vs. Gomez) was lawfully constituted as the sole collective bargaining representative of Philippine Air Lines (PAL) pilots.
Which faction was entitled to the union’s corporate name, office, and funds.

Petition L-35206, filed by 127 individual pilots and ALPAP (Gaston), attacked a resolution suspending hearings on their claims for:

Reinstatement and/or return to work in PAL; or, alternatively, payment of retirement and/or separation benefits.

The petitions were consolidated because they involved interlocking issues and largely the same parties.

ALPAP held a general membership meeting on October 30, 1970, where 221 of 270 members approved an amendment to its Constitution and By-Laws permitting active members forced to retire, resign, or terminated for union activities to either remain or resign formally.
On December 18–22, 1970, an election was held resulting in:

Felix C. Gaston’s election as president by 180 votes.
A separate meeting on December 23, 1970, by about 45 pilots (who did not tender their resignation/retirement) electing Ben Hur Gomez as president.

The controversy centered on the legitimacy of these elections and the authority over the union’s assets and identity.

In the certification petition (L-33705), Judge Joaquin M. Salvador’s decision (May 29, 1971) certified ALPAP (non-resigning, PAL-employed pilots) with Ben Hur Gomez as collective bargaining representative.

Absence of a recent certification election.
A pre-existing collective bargaining agreement between PAL and ALPAP.
Acts by the Gaston group which indicated a mass resignation/retirement from PAL.

In parallel, the industrial court handled labor dispute issues in Case No. 101-IPA(B), arising from:

Return-to-work orders issued by Judge Ansberto P. Paredes due to ongoing strikes.
Subsequent events where some pilots, including Gaston, were dismissed by PAL following non-compliance or selective participation in return-to-work orders.

Denying motions for reconsideration regarding the certification results.
Adopting a resolution (June 19, 1972) suspending hearings on the petitions for reinstatement pending the decision in L-33705.

Motion for contempt filed by Felix Gaston claiming unjust dismissal.
Petitions by a group of pilots for reinstatement to PAL or, alternatively, for retirement or separation pay benefits.

PAL’s acceptance of the pilots’ letters of resignation/retirement was subject to a caveat that such pilots would forfeit certain benefits.
There were also motions to suspend proceedings and challenges regarding the jurisdiction and proper adjudication of the pilots’ employment status after their resignation or retirement.

Whether the Court of Industrial Relations had jurisdiction to determine which faction was the duly elected collective bargaining representative.
Whether a certification proceeding in an industrial dispute can include issues seemingly ancillary to the actual representation matter, such as the validity of amendments to a union’s constitution.
Whether the suspension of hearings on the reinstatement petitions (L-35206) pending the resolution of L-33705 constitutes grave abuse of discretion or a jurisdictional error.

Whether the amendment to ALPAP’s Constitution and By-Laws—allowing non-PAL employees to remain as members—was adopted in accordance with the union’s prescribed procedures.
Whether the statutory definition of a “labor organization” may extend membership beyond employees of a single employer.
If the restrictive interpretation of union membership, limiting it to PAL’s employees, is legally sound given the language of R.A. 875.

Whether the mass retirement and resignation actions by a group of pilots should be deemed as a legitimate concerted activity or an intentional abandonment of their employment relationship to evade court jurisdiction.
The consequences of such actions on the pilots’ rights to reinstatement, retirement, or separation benefits.
Whether the industrial court had the power to order the forfeiture of rights and privileges (retirement benefits) for pilots who resigned or retired in contravention of return-to-work orders.