Case Digest (G.R. No. L-18559)
Facts:
Philippine Air Lines Employees' Association v. Philippine Air Lines, Inc., G.R. No. L-18559, June 30, 1964, the Supreme Court En Banc, Concepcion, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellant was Philippine Air Lines Employees' Association (PALEA), a registered labor organization claiming assignment of its members' claims; the defendant-appellant was Philippine Air Lines, Inc. (PAL).On January 4, 1956 PALEA and PAL entered into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) effective to January 1, 1959 providing a regular workweek of forty-eight (48) hours. After the enactment of Republic Act No. 1880 on June 22, 1957 — which fixed the legal hours of labor at eight (8) hours a day, five (5) days a week (forty hours) and expressly made that rule "applicable to all laborers employed in government‑owned and controlled corporations" — PALEA requested that PAL extend RA 1880's benefits to its members on the ground that PAL was government‑controlled through the National Development Company (NDC), which owned a majority of PAL's authorized capital stock.
When PAL refused, PALEA filed suit on August 7, 1958 in the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Manila seeking declaration that PAL was a government controlled corporation subject to RA 1880, shortening of work hours from 48 to 40 hours per week (Mon–Fri at 8 hours/day), overtime pay for work beyond 40 hours, and other reliefs including attorney's fees. PAL answered admitting many facts but denying it was government‑controlled, asserting the CBA governed hours, raising constitutional and procedural defenses (including that RA 1880 was unconstitutional), and later alleging the assignment to PALEA was void. PAL also counterclaimed for attorney's fees.
PALEA filed a third amended complaint alleging after suit commencement its members had assigned their claims to the union. The trial court rendered judgment declaring PAL a government‑controlled corporation and subject to RA 1880 (as implemented by Executive Order No. 251), ordered PAL to reduce hours to 40 per week (8 hours/day, Mon–Fri), required PAL to report and pay employees who worked Saturdays from July 1, 1957 through the date of compliance (through the union by virtue of the assignment), awarded P3,000 attorney's fees to PALEA, and dismissed PAL's counterclaim.
Both parties appealed from the trial court's decision on a joint record, raising numerous points including: jurisdiction of the trial court; validity of PALEA's cause of action and the post‑complaint assignments; constitutionalit...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of First Instance of Manila have jurisdiction to decide this controversy?
- Was PALEA a proper party to prosecute the members' claims (i.e., was the post‑complaint assignment valid and did PALEA have a cause of action)?
- Is Section 3 of Republic Act No. 1880 (extending the Eight‑Hour Law to government‑owned and controlled corporations) constitutional as to its title?
- Is PAL a government controlled corporation within the meaning of RA 1880?
- Do the parties' collective bargaining agreement and its 48‑hour workweek provision prevail over RA 1880, or does RA 1880 modify the working hours and compensation entitlements of PAL employees?
- What is the proper rate of additional compens...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)