Title
Almagro vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 204803
Decision Date
Sep 12, 2018
Former PAL pilots claimed illegal dismissal after a 1998 strike, alleging non-participation. SC upheld prior rulings, citing logbook signatures as evidence of strike involvement, applying res judicata and stare decisis.
labor dispute
strike
employment status

Case Summary (G.R. No. 204803)

Administrative Jurisdiction, Illegal Strike, and the Return-to-Work Regime

On December 9, 1997, ALPAP filed a notice of strike before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board on grounds of unfair labor practice and alleged union-busting by PAL (the strike case). The DOLE Secretary assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute on December 23, 1997. Despite this, ALPAP declared and commenced a strike on June 5, 1998. After failed conciliation efforts, the Secretary issued a return-to-work order dated June 7, 1998, addressed to all striking officers and members of ALPAP. The strike continued until June 26, 1998, when ALPAP’s officers and members attempted to report for work.

The employees who attempted to return to work signed PAL’s logbook for “Return to Work Returnees/Compliance” (the PAL security logbook) on June 26, 1998. PAL refused to accept the returning employees because it treated the deadline imposed by the return-to-work order as having already lapsed. This refusal prompted ALPAP to file an illegal lockout case against PAL with the NLRC on June 29, 1998. Since the Secretary was still exercising jurisdiction, the illegal lockout case was consolidated with the strike case in the DOLE.

In a Resolution dated June 1, 1999, the Secretary (1) declared the loss of employment status of all officers and members who participated in the strike in defiance of the return-to-work order; and (2) dismissed the illegal lockout case. This Resolution was challenged and was ultimately upheld by the Court in G.R. No. 152306 through a Resolution dated April 10, 2002.

Subsequent Motions and Finality of the “Erring Pilots” Consequence

After the Court’s resolution in G.R. No. 152306 became final, ALPAP filed, on January 13, 2003, a motion with the Secretary to determine who among its officers and members should be reinstated, or deemed to have lost their employment status, based on actual participation in the strike. ALPAP claimed that PAL dismissed all its members indiscriminately, including those who did not participate in the strike.

The Secretary denied the motion, grounding the denial on the finality of G.R. No. 152306, which already determined that “the erring pilots have lost their employment status” and that affected pilots had filed cases to contest such loss in another forum. When brought to the CA under Rule 65, the CA found no grave abuse of discretion by the Secretary. In Airline Pilots Association of the Philippines v. Philippine Airlines, Inc. (G.R. No. 168382), the Court affirmed the CA and further declared that there was no necessity for a separate proceeding to identify the participants in the illegal strike or those who refused to heed the return-to-work order, reasoning that the ambiguity could be cured by reference to the pleadings and the PAL security logbook.

The Court noted that the records revealed names of pilots who returned only after June 9, 1998, the deadline imposed in the return-to-work order. Both G.R. No. 152306 and Airline Pilots attained finality and executory character.

Petitioners’ Illegal Dismissal Complaints and the Rehabilitation Jurisdictional Issue

Petitioners, former senior pilots of PAL and described in the record as among those refused by PAL when they attempted to return on June 26, 1998, instituted consolidated complaints for illegal dismissal and monetary claims against PAL, Lucio Tan, and Jose Antonio Garcia. They filed (1) NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-07-05400-98 on July 3, 1998 (by Almagro); and (2) NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-11-08918-98 on November 4, 1998 (by Cruz, Juliano, Novenario, and Canete).

An initial favorable Decision for petitioners was rendered by the Labor Arbiter on August 25, 2000. However, on January 10, 2002, the NLRC set aside the Labor Arbiter’s Decision for want of jurisdiction, holding that PAL’s rehabilitation was a supervening event that divested the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC of jurisdiction over the cases, and issued an order staying all claims against PAL. The Court upheld the NLRC’s jurisdictional ruling because of the pending rehabilitation and the stay order.

After the rehabilitation was declared a success by the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 28, 2007, petitioners moved for the resumption of the consolidated cases before the Labor Arbiter. The parties then proceeded, using the same evidence previously submitted before the same Labor Arbiter.

Labor Arbiter’s and NLRC’s Findings: Logbook Signatures and Credence to PAL Photographic Evidence

In a July 16, 2008 Decision, the Labor Arbiter dismissed petitioners’ consolidated complaints. The Labor Arbiter reasoned that petitioners were among hundreds of ALPAP members who signified their intention to return to work by signing the PAL security logbook only on June 26, 1998, which constituted an admission that they participated in the illegal strike staged by ALPAP. The Labor Arbiter further stated that, despite an opportunity to dispute identity, petitioners did not dispute that they were the persons depicted in photographs submitted by PAL. The Labor Arbiter therefore gave credence to the affidavit of Candido Tamayo, described as PAL’s Senior Field Agent of its Security and Fraud Prevention Department, who testified that he took the photographs showing some of the petitioners participating in the strike.

On this basis, the Labor Arbiter concluded that because petitioners participated in the illegal strike and willfully defied the return-to-work order, they lost their employment status in PAL. The NLRC affirmed. It held that petitioners acted in concert with the union despite being on official leave, and it also assigned probative value to PAL’s photographs. It stated that the illegality of the strike carried the consequence of loss of employment status for all members who supported the strike in one way or another.

CA Proceedings and Reversal in the Amended Decision

When petitioners elevated the case to the CA via certiorari under Rule 65, the CA initially granted the petition. It ruled that petitioners had proven they were on official leave at the time ALPAP staged the strike on June 5, 1998, and when the return-to-work order was issued, and it characterized PAL’s evidence as insufficient to prove that petitioners were among the strikers on the relevant date. The CA held that petitioners’ signatures on the logbook could not be deemed admissions of involvement in the strike because the statements were not clear and unequivocal. The CA also considered that the return-to-work order had penal character because it imposed the ultimate penalty of dismissal; thus, it should be interpreted to include only those who participated in the June 5, 1998 strike.

On PAL’s motion for reconsideration, the CA issued the Amended Decision dated December 7, 2012, reversing its earlier ruling. The CA declared that it found no grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC. It took judicial notice of the Court’s rulings in G.R. No. 152306 and Airline Pilots, and held that petitioners’ signatures on the PAL security logbook for those who attempted to comply belatedly on June 26, 1998 sufficiently established that they were the strikers who defied the return-to-work order. The CA also considered petitioners’ common actions and behavior before and during the strike as revealing intent to paralyze PAL’s operations. It emphasized that, as early as December 1997, the Secretary had assumed jurisdiction and proscribed acts that would exacerbate the situation, yet petitioners allegedly took leaves prior to the brewing strike. It also noted sightings of some petitioners at the strike area even after the return-to-work order had been issued.

Finding that the Labor Arbiter and NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case, the CA affirmed the administrative dismissal.

Issues on Certiorari and Petitioners’ Arguments Against Binding Effect of Airline Pilots

Before the Court, petitioners challenged factual and legal determinations made by the administrative agencies and the CA. The Court treated the determinative issue as whether petitioners were bound by the findings in Airline Pilots that signatories in the PAL security logbook on June 26, 1998 participated in the strike and defied the return-to-work order.

Petitioners argued that the CA erred in concluding that they participated in the illegal strike based solely on logbook signatures. They claimed their signatures were not admissions of strike participation, because they signed in the hope they would be allowed to regain employment. They also asserted that they were already dismissed by PAL on June 9, 1998 when they signed the logbook on June 26, 1998.

Petitioners further contended that the CA erred in finding defiance of the return-to-work order. They argued that the return-to-work order was addressed only to striking ALPAP officers and members and was not even served on them. They also maintained that it was legally impossible for them to have engaged in a strike because they were on approved official leaves during the material period, and that any stoppage of work was with PAL’s consent. They further stated that the records showed they reported for duty immediately after their respective leaves expired.

On the evidentiary level, petitioners maintained that the NLRC and Labor Arbiter’s conclusions about concerted action with ALPAP were conjectural. They insisted that NLRC and Labor Arbiter gave undue importance to PAL’s photographs, which petitioners claimed were suspect, allegedly lacked time stamps, and were inconsistent with the photograph evidence used to show strike participation. They also asserted that certain petitioners, including Canete and Juliano, were not shown at the strike area at any time.

Finally, petitioners argued that they were not bound by the Airline Pilots ruling by virtue of res judicata or stare decisis. They claimed they were not parties to that case, since ALPAP initiated it. They also invoked lack of authority for representation, arguing

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms