Case Digest (G.R. No. 168382)
Facts:
Airline Pilots Association of the Philippines v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. 168382, June 06, 2011, the Supreme Court First Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Airline Pilots Association of the Philippines (ALPAP), the certified bargaining agent of PAL pilots, challenged letters issued by then Acting DOLE Secretary Manuel G. Imson (July 4, 2003) and DOLE Secretary Patricia A. Sto. Tomas (July 30, 2003) that merely “noted” ALPAP’s motions seeking a proceeding to determine which officers and members actually participated in the June 5, 1998 strike.
The dispute began when ALPAP filed a notice of strike on December 9, 1997. By Order dated December 23, 1997 the DOLE Secretary assumed jurisdiction over the dispute pursuant to Article 263(g) of the Labor Code and enjoined strikes and lockouts. ALPAP proceeded to strike on June 5, 1998. The DOLE issued a return-to-work order on June 7, 1998; many pilots returned only on June 26, 1998 as shown in a signed logbook. PAL refused to accept returning pilots, prompting ALPAP to file a complaint for illegal lockout (NLRC NCR Case No. 00-06-05253-98), which the Labor Arbiter consolidated with the NCMB strike case (NCMB NCR NS 12-514-97).
On June 1, 1999, through DOLE Secretary Bienvenido E. Laguesma, the DOLE issued a Resolution declaring the June 5, 1998 strike illegal and pronouncing that officers and members who participated therein had lost their employment status; the DOLE denied reconsideration on July 23, 1999. ALPAP filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 54880), which the CA affirmed on August 22, 2001. ALPAP elevated the matter to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 152306), but this Court dismissed the petition on April 10, 2002; the judgment became final and executory on August 29, 2002.
On January 13 and 27, 2003, ALPAP moved before the DOLE Secretary to conduct proceedings to determine who among its officers and members should be reinstated or deemed to have lost employment, citing, among others, an ILO Freedom of Association Committee recommendation. After a hearing, Acting Secretary Imson, by letter dated July 4, 2003, concluded that NCMB-NCR-NS-12-514-97 had been finally resolved by the Supreme Court and therefore the DOLE was without authority to reopen issues already passed upon; Imson also emphasized the NLRC’s jurisdiction over individual illegal dismissal complaints. Secretary Sto. Tomas, by letter dated July 30, 2003, similarly “noted” ALPAP’s motion for reconsideration.
ALPAP sought certiorari relief in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 79686), contending the DOLE officers committed grave abuse of discretion by merely noting the motions rather than conducting the requested proceedings. The CA, in a Decision dated December 22, 2004, dismissed ALPAP’s petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion and h...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in holding that the DOLE respondents did not commit grave abuse of discretion by refusing to act on ALPAP’s motions and merely noting them.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring that the June 1, 1999 DOLE Resolution had already taken up and resolved the issue of who among ALPAP members are deemed to hav...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)