Case Digest (G.R. No. 135547)
Facts:
Gerardo F. Rivera, Alfred A. Ramiso, Ambrocio Palad, Dennis R. Aranas, David Sorima, Jr., Jorge P. Dela Rosa, and Isagani Aldea v. Hon. Edgardo Espiritu, Hon. Bienvenido Laguesma, Philippine Airlines, et al., G.R. No. 135547, January 23, 2002, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.In mid-1998 Philippine Airlines (PAL) suffered severe financial distress after a three-week strike by pilots affiliated with ALPAP (June 5, 1998). PAL implemented a rehabilitation plan and downsized its workforce; this led to a strike by the PAL Employees Association (PALEA) on July 22, 1998, which ended with an agreement for systematic reductions and separation benefits for affected employees.
On August 28, 1998, President Estrada issued Administrative Order No. 16, creating an Inter-Agency Task Force (the Task Force) composed of several departments and the SEC, with Edgardo Espiritu (Secretary of Finance) as chairman, empowered to mediate and conciliate disputes involving PAL. Conciliation between PAL management and the unions (ALPAP, PALEA, FASAP) followed, with the Task Force assisting as mediator.
On September 4, 1998, private respondent Lucio Tan offered a plan to transfer 60,000 PAL shares to each active employee and requested a suspension of the Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) for 10 years as part of the rescue plan. The PALEA board initially accepted the offer but, under pressure from rank-and-file members, later resolved to reject it. PAL announced shutdown plans on September 17 and ceased operations on September 23, 1998, sending termination notices.
PALEA sought presidential intervention and offered its own terms; after negotiations the PALEA board on September 27, 1998 proposed terms (including the 60,000-share grant per employee, three board seats for employees, and a voluntary 10-year suspension of the PAL‑PALEA CBA) subject to ratification by the general membership. Petitioners Rivera, Ramiso and Aranas were among the signatories. PAL accepted PALEA’s proposal and a DOLE‑supervised referendum was held: a first referendum (Sept. 21–22) returned more votes against Tan’s initial offer; a second, larger DOLE‑supervised referendum on October 2, 1998 recorded 5,324 votes with 61% in favor of the PAL‑PALEA agreement. PAL resumed domestic operations on October 7, 1998.
On October 7, 1998 seven PALEA officers and members filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 against the public respondents (Task Force officials) and private respondents, alleging (1) grave abuse of discretion by public respondents in actively facilitating and presiding over the PAL‑PALEA agreement and (2) that the agreement’s 10‑year suspension of the C...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is an original action for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 the proper remedy to annul the September 27, 1998 PAL‑PALEA agreement?
- Is the PAL‑PALEA agreement of September 27, 1998, stipulating the suspension of the PAL‑PALEA CBA for ten years unconstitutional or contrary to public policy (including Article 253‑A of the Labor Code and consti...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)