Case Summary (G.R. No. 218984)
Background of the Case
Armando M. Tolentino was employed by PAL as a flight engineer, eventually reaching the rank of A340/A330 Captain. In June 1998, following a strike led by the Airline Pilots Association of the Philippines (ALPAP), the Department of Labor issued a return-to-work order which a number of pilots, including Tolentino, defied. After returning to work later, PAL refused to readmit them, prompting Tolentino to file a complaint for illegal lockout and subsequently reapply for his position as a new hire, undergoing a probationary period.
Labor Arbiter's Ruling
On March 14, 2013, the Labor Arbiter dismissed Tolentino's complaint, concluding that he had participated in an illegal strike, resulting in a valid dismissal; thus, he was not entitled to separation pay or other benefits. The Arbiter also stated that since Tolentino resigned less than a year after being rehired, he could not claim retirement benefits as defined by the CBA.
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Findings
The NLRC upheld the Labor Arbiter’s ruling on June 28, 2013, confirming that Tolentino's termination was legally justified due to his involvement in the illegal strike. The NLRC added that he lost his employment status, and as a result, was ineligible for the claimed benefits. A motion for reconsideration was denied in August 2013.
Court of Appeals (CA) Decision
The CA, in its September 30, 2014 decision, affirmed the NLRC's ruling but modified it slightly to allow for payment of accrued vacation leave, pointing out Tolentino's entitlement due to his years of service despite the conditions surrounding his employment. Subsequently, both parties filed motions for partial reconsideration concerning other claimed benefits.
Supreme Court's Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition from the petitioners. It noted that an employee who defies a lawful return-to-work order commits an illegal act that justifies termination under Article 282 of the Labor Code. The Court reinforced prior rulings indicating that those who participated in the June 5, 1998, strike lost their employment status.
Tolentino's claims regarding retirement and separation benefits were dismissed because he did not complete the requisite service during his reemployment, rendering him ineligible. The Court elaborated that retirement benefits necessitate a voluntary agreement to sever employment, which Tolentino did not fulfill since his initial employment was terminated for just cause.
Entitlement to Retirement Benefits
The Supreme Court established that Tolentino's previous tenure with PAL from 1971 to 1998 could not be counted toward retirement eligibility upon rehire in July 1998, as his prior employment had been lawfully terminated due to his involvement in an illegal strike. It emphasized the distinction between retired status and his circumstances of losing employment due to just cause.
Equity in Retirement Fund
The claim for equity in the PAL Pilots' Retirement Benefit Plan was also denied, as the plan is non-contributory to employees, and claimants must retire to
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 218984)
Case Overview
- This case involves a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
- Petitioners are the heirs of Armando M. Tolentino, who challenge the decisions of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the rulings of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Labor Arbiter.
- The core issue revolves around Tolentino's claims for separation pay, retirement benefits, holiday pay, and damages after his employment with Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL).
Background of the Case
- Armando M. Tolentino was employed by PAL as a flight engineer starting from October 22, 1971, and achieved the rank of A340/A330 Captain by July 16, 1999.
- 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, including Tolentino, participated in a strike, leading to an order from the Secretary of Labor mandating their return to work.
- Despite the order, Tolentino participated in the strike and was not readmitted when he returned to work on June 26, 1998, prompting him to file a complaint against PAL for illegal lockout.
- Following this, Tolentino reapplied for employment with PAL, underwent a probationary period, and resigned less than a year later on July 16, 1999.
- The Secretary of Labor later declared the strike illegal, stating that participants had lost their employment status.
Ruling of the Labor Arbiter
- On March 14, 2013, the Labor Arbiter dismissed Tolentino's complaint, ruling:
- Tolentino was not entitled to separation pay