Case Digest (G.R. No. 178083)
Facts:
Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. 178083, October 02, 2009, Special Third Division, Ynares‑Santiago, J., writing for the Court. In mid‑1998, Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) implemented a retrenchment scheme that resulted in the termination of about 1,423 cabin crew personnel effective July 15, 1998. PAL subsequently filed for corporate rehabilitation with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the SEC issued an order placing PAL under rehabilitation on June 23, 1998. The pleiad of events in 1998 included a pilots’ strike beginning June 5, 1998, further labor disturbances, closure of some operations and later partial resumption of services; PAL later recalled or rehired a number of those earlier retrenched, while many others accepted separation pay and executed quitclaims.The affected cabin crew, represented by FASAP, litigated before the Labor Arbiter, which (according to the procedural history in the record) found for the cabin crew. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) thereafter set aside the Labor Arbiter’s findings; the Court of Appeals in CA‑G.R. SP No. 87956 (Aug. 23, 2006) affirmed the NLRC. FASAP then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for review (Rule 45), and on July 22, 2008 the Court granted the petition, held that PAL was guilty of illegal dismissal, and ordered reinstatement or payment of backwages/separation pay and attorney’s fees. PAL filed a Motion for Reconsideration of that July 22, 2008 decision, attaching additional audited financial statements and re‑urging that its retrenchment was justified by desperate financial circumstances, SEC rehabilitation findings, the pilots’ strike, and legitimate application of CBA criteria (including use of 1997 efficiency ratings and inverse seniority). FASAP opposed the Motion, reiterating that retrenchment was premature, procedurally defective, and implemented wit...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Should the Court grant PAL’s Motion for Reconsideration and overturn or modify its July 22, 2008 decision?
- Was PAL’s mass retrenchment of the cabin crew in June–July 1998 valid under Article 283 of the Labor Code (i.e., reasonably necessary to prevent business losses, with requisite notice, separation pay, good faith, and fair and reasonable selection criteria)?
- Do PAL’s SEC rehabilitation findings, subsequent recall/rehire of employees, and executed quitclaims cure any defects in the retrenchment or negate bad faith?
- Was the award of attorney’s fees in the July 22, 2008 decision...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)