G.R. No. 218984 - Tolentino vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc.

Tolentino was hired by Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) as a flight engineer on October 22, 1971, and eventually rose to the rank of A340/A330 Captain by July 16, 1999.
As a pilot, he was a member of the Airline Pilots Association of the Philippines (ALPAP), which had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with PAL.

On June 5, 1998, ALPAP members went on strike.
On June 7, 1998, the Secretary of Labor issued an Order directing all striking officers and members to return to work within 24 hours and requiring PAL management to accept them under the same terms as before the strike.
Despite the directive effective until June 9, 1998, some pilots—including Tolentino—continued to participate in the strike.
When Tolentino and other striking pilots eventually returned on June 26, 1998, PAL refused to readmit them, prompting the filing of a complaint for illegal lockout against the airline.

On July 20, 1998, Tolentino reapplied for employment with PAL and was subsequently hired as a new employee, undergoing a six-month probationary period.
After less than a year, Tolentino tendered his resignation effective July 16, 1999.
Meanwhile, on June 1, 1999, the Secretary of Labor issued a resolution declaring the strike illegal and confirming that ALPAP members who defied the return-to-work order had lost their employment status.

Upon returning to the Philippines after working for a foreign airline, Tolentino informed PAL of his intention to collect separation and/or retirement benefits as provided under the CBA.
PAL refused to grant these benefits.
Tolentino then filed a complaint for non-payment of holiday pay, rest day pay, separation pay, and retirement benefits, including claims for damages and attorney’s fees.

Dismissed Tolentino’s complaint, holding that he was not entitled to separation pay or other benefits because his participation in the illegal strike and defiance of the return-to-work order justified his dismissal.
Held that his claim for holiday and rest day pay was invalid as he was considered a new hire upon reemployment.

National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) – Decision and Resolution (June 28 and August 27, 2013):

Affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s ruling, finding that Tolentino was not entitled to any of the claimed benefits, including moral and exemplary damages.
Emphasized that Tolentino’s severance of employment was due to his own actions and that he did not meet the requisite conditions for the benefits under the CBA.

On September 30, 2014, the CA affirmed, with some modifications, the NLRC decisions and ordered PAL to pay Tolentino’s accrued vacation leave equivalent to 27 calendar days of salary.
Petitioners later filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration on November 1, 2014, arguing entitlement to retirement benefits, return of equity in the retirement fund, and damages.
PAL countered with its own motion.
The CA denied petitioners’ Motion for Partial Reconsideration on June 10, 2015, which led to the present petition for review.

Whether petitioners (the surviving spouse and children of Tolentino) are entitled to receive Capt. Tolentino’s retirement benefits under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with PAL.
Whether petitioners are entitled to the return of Capt. Tolentino’s equity in the retirement fund under the PAL Pilots’ Retirement Benefit Plan.
Whether petitioners are entitled to payment of moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney’s fees.