Title
Enriquez vs. Zamora
Case
G.R. No. L-51382
Decision Date
Dec 29, 1986
Pilots voluntarily retired/resigned during a strike, forfeiting seniority; SC ruled no protected concerted activity, upheld employer rights, but granted full retirement benefits.
pilots
seniority rights
privileges
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-51382)

Factual Background

On October 3, 1970, PALEA and ALPAP staged a strike against PAL to demand pay increases, improved working conditions on certain international routes, and a better retirement plan. Pursuant to Section 10 of Republic Act No. 875, the President certified the strike to the CIR. The CIR, through Associate Judge Ansberto Paredes, issued an order on October 7, 1970 directing the officers and members of PALEA and ALPAP to call off the strike, lift picket lines, and return to work not later than October 9, 1970. The order required PAL to admit the striking employees back to work under the same terms and conditions existing before the strike and to refrain from suspending, dismissing, or laying off any employee as a result of the strike. It also warned that employees failing to return by the stated date without justifiable cause would be replaced immediately and could not be reinstated without prior court order and on justifiable grounds.

The strikers moved for reconsideration but complied after the denial by returning to work on October 22, 1970. Five days later, on October 27, 1970, PAL dismissed Captain Gaston, who had been the strike leader. On October 30, 1970, ALPAP’s board adopted resolutions condemning PAL’s alleged harassment and unfair labor practices, including actions that allegedly involved a lockout, forced retirement of Captain Regino Masias, and dismissal of Captain Gaston. The board resolved to ground PAL planes and to file applications for “protest retirement” for members who had completed five years of continuous service and “protest resignation” for those with less than five years.

On November 9, 1970, the board called on all union members to complete and submit their protest retirement or resignation forms on or before November 17, 1970, and on November 12, 1970 Captain Gaston issued a circular setting that deadline. When PAL learned that many ALPAP members had signed their forms and that ALPAP intended to submit them en masse to coincide with an anticipated Papal visit, PAL filed with the CIR an ex parte urgent motion to enjoin officers and members from retiring or resigning en masse. On November 26, 1970, the CIR issued an order directing the parties to maintain status quo pending hearing. It ordered ALPAP and its members not to strike or cause any stoppage in PAL’s operation or service, under pain of dismissal and forfeiture of rights and privileges, and it ordered PAL not to lock out ALPAP members and officers, under pain of contempt and cancellation of PAL’s franchise.

Despite the November 26, 1970 order, some ALPAP officers and a majority of members submitted their retirement or resignation letters on December 12, 1970. The letters were tendered individually but in substantially the same form, stating that the retirement or resignation was a vigorous protest against alleged harassment, unfair labor tactics, lockouts, and the dismissal of Captain Gaston, and indicating that the retirement would be effective immediately upon receipt. PAL acknowledged receipt and, through its letters, expressly stated that it “chopped” the pilots from the payrolls as of the time and date it received their letters. PAL also asserted that the purported retirement was in pursuance of a conspiracy and in violation of the November 26, 1970 CIR order, and therefore the pilots were not entitled to benefits under the retirement plan or other rights, benefits, and privileges by reason of their former employment, having committed acts resulting in forfeiture. The letters invited the pilots to report to the Industrial Relations Department for clearances and settlement of accounts.

Enriquez and Ecarma were among those whose protest retirement/resignation was accepted by PAL. After leaving, Ecarma returned to PAL on January 12, 1971 after being absent for thirty days, and Enriquez returned after not reporting for thirty-six days, on January 18, 1971. Before readmission, PAL required both to accept two conditions: they had to sign conformity to PAL’s letter of acceptance of their retirement and/or resignation, and they had to submit an application for employment as new employees without protest or reservation. On March 17, 1971, PAL issued a new seniority list for pilots. Enriquez’s and Ecarma’s new seniority dates were set at January 18, 1971 and January 12, 1971, respectively, effectively stripping them of nearly ten years and five years of seniority and placing them at “zero seniority.”

CIR and NLRC Proceedings

Enriquez and Ecarma, together with twenty-three other pilots, filed before the CIR a petition to restore their seniority and other privileges. They alleged that ALPAP had not apprised them of the legal consequences of their retirement or resignation and that they were merely told to obey or face expulsion from the union. They also alleged that ALPAP expelled them on February 12, 1971. PAL opposed, asserting that the mass retirement/resignation constituted contempt of court. PAL further claimed that returning pilots were accepted on a probationary basis for six months, and it maintained that their retirement or resignation violated the November 26, 1970 CIR order, so they lost their privileges or benefits.

During the pendency of the case, the CIR was abolished and the records were transferred to the NLRC. On March 31, 1975, Acting Labor Arbiter Nestor C. Lim denied the petition. The labor arbiter respected the March 17, 1971 seniority ranking to avoid injustice and demoralization and to prevent disruption of PAL’s operations. As mitigation, and notwithstanding violation of the November 26, 1970 order, the arbiter allowed returning pilots to receive fifty percent (50%) or one-half of the retirement benefits they would have received under the PAL-ALPAP Retirement Plan, had their retirement/resignation not violated the court order.

Both PAL and the Enriquez group appealed to the NLRC en banc. On August 15, 1975, the parties entered into a compromise agreement before the conference-hearing. The agreement recognized the termination of the employee-employer relationship between PAL and the pilots who joined the mass retirement/resignation in December 1970 and the consequent loss of seniority accrued in their old employment. It provided that, as compromise to temper the penalty of forfeiture under the November 26, 1970 order for those who reapplied as new pilots and were taken in as such, PAL would pay them eighty-five percent (85%) of their retirement pay under the PAL-ALPAP Retirement Plan effective in December 1970. For those not entitled to retirement pay under the plan, the agreement directed payment of eighty-five percent (85%) of their separation pay under the Termination Pay Act in effect in December 1970. The agreement further stated that upon payment of the eighty-five percent (85%), the pilots would release PAL from any claims arising from matters connected with their petition for restoration of seniority and other privileges. On September 16, 1975, the NLRC en banc approved the compromise agreement and dismissed the case “with prejudice.”

The compromise was not accepted by all. Eight of the eleven petitioners approved it while N. Salgado was absent. Enriquez and Ecarma did not conform, so they separately appealed to the Secretary of Labor, arguing that the NLRC resolution approving the compromise agreement was not in accordance with law and violated constitutional guarantees against deprivation of property without due process, as well as the constitutional protection for labor and social justice. On August 3, 1976, then Secretary of Labor Blas F. Ople ordered that, as to Enriquez, Ecarma, and Salgado, the NLRC should not have dismissed the case but should have decided it on the merits. However, the Secretary found the compromise agreement beneficial to the appellants and directed Enriquez and Ecarma to comply with its terms.

Enriquez and Ecarma then attempted to pursue judicial review but indicated their intent to exhaust administrative remedies. The earlier administrative avenue proceeded until it reached the Office of the President. On October 10, 1977, Presidential Assistant for Legal Affairs Ronaldo B. Zamora affirmed the Secretary’s action, noting that the extension of compromise benefits to Enriquez and Ecarma was consistent with the constitutional mandate to protect labor. Petitioners later obtained the decision of the Office of the President on August 24, 1979. They then filed the instant petition for mandamus and certiorari.

Issues Raised by Petitioners

Petitioners framed the issues as whether, by their employment relationship, they were entitled to the restoration of seniority rights, and whether the “mass strike” on December 12, 1970 was a concerted activity protected by law. They also contended that it was beyond the coercive and punitive powers of the CIR, and thereafter the NLRC, to order the forfeiture of seniority rights and other privileges. They asserted that seniority constituted a vested right that could not be deprived without due process. They further argued that PAL’s refusal to reinstate them unless they relinquished their seniority rights constituted unfair labor practice.

Parties’ Contentions

Petitioners insisted that their retirement or resignation was not a legitimate strike or concerted protected action and that PAL acted unfairly by conditioning their readmission in a manner that required surrender of seniority. They maintained, in substance, that the seniority rights allegedly earned over long service were property interests protected by due process and that court authority could not be used to strip them through forfeiture.

PAL and the labor respondents, in response, relied on the characterization that the pilots’ action was a concerted mass move that contravened the CIR order, and thus the pilots lost their privileges, including seniority, upon termination of employment. PAL also argued that the returning pilots were readmitted under conditions that recognized

...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