SUPREME COURT
EN BANC
PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC.,
Petitioner,
-versus- G.R. No. L-21120
February 28, 1967
PHILIPPINE AIR LINES EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION and COURT OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS,
Respondents.
x----------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
CONCEPCION, C.J.:
Appeal by Certiorari, taken by the Philippine Air Lines, Inc.
hereinafter referred to as the PAL from an order of the Court of
Industrial Relations hereinafter referred to as the CIR the
dispositive part of which reads: chanroblespublishingcompany
WHEREFORE, the Philippine Air Lines is hereby ordered to
pay the four claimants, Messrs. Fortunato Biangco, Hernando
Guevarra, Bernardino Abarrientos and Onofre Grio the
Christmas bonus due them for the year 1950 to 1958; to credit
in favor of Fortunato Biangco and Hernando Guevarra 140 days
each, sick leave which the two may use or enjoy according to
existing company rules and regulations regarding this privilege,
and to allow the four claimants the enjoyment of their earned
and accumulated free trip passes both here and abroad subject
to the above-mentioned plan the company may adopt. In order
to effect early payment of the Christmas bonus, the Chief
Examiner of the Court or his duly authorized representatives is
hereby directed to examine pertinent records of the company,
to compute and determine the Christmas bonus due each of the
four claimants and to submit a report thereof immediately upon
completion of the same. chanroblespublishingcompany
It appears that on May 4, 1950, PAL dismissed its above named four
(4) employees, who are members of the Philippine Air Lines
Employees Association hereinafter referred to as PALEA and
that on July 13, 1954, the CIR en banc passed a resolution, in Case
No. 465-V thereof, directing the reinstatement of said employees to
their former or equivalent positions in the company, with back wages
from the date of their dismissal to the date of their reinstatement, and
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges.
This resolution was affirmed by the Supreme Court, in G. R. No. L-
8197, on October 31, 1958. chanroblespublishingcompany
On January 14, 1959, said employees were reinstated, and
subsequently their back wages, computed at the rate of their
compensation at the time of the aforementioned dismissal, less the
wages and salaries earned by them elsewhere during the lay-off
period, were paid to them. The employees objected to this deduction
and the CIR sustained them, in a Resolution dated May 22, 1960,
which was reversed by the Supreme Court, on July 26, 1960, in G. R.
No. L- 15544. Soon later, or on November 10, 1960, the PALEA
moved for the execution of the CIR resolution of July 13, 1954, as
regards the other rights and privileges therein mentioned, referring,
more specifically to: (1) Christmas bonus from 1950 to 1958; (2)
accumulated sick leave; (3) transportation allowance during the layoff
period; and (4) accumulated free trip passes, both domestic and
international. By an order dated October 8, 1962, the CIR granted this
motion, except as regards the sick leave of Onofre Grio and
Bernardino Abarrientos, and the transportation allowance, which
were denied. Hence, this appeal. chanroblespublishingcompany
PAL maintains that the CIR has erred in acting as it did, because: (1)
the aforementioned privileges were not specifically mentioned in the
CIR resolution of July 13, 1954; (2) the order of the CIR dated
October 31, 1962, had, allegedly, the effect of amending said
resolution; and (3) the clause therein without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges should be construed
prospectively, not retroactively.
Insofar as the Christmas bonus, the accumulated sick leave privileges
and the transportation allowance during the lay-off period, the PALs
contention is clearly devoid of merit. The aforementioned clause must
be considered in the light of the entire context of the resolution of
July 13, 1954 and of its dispositive part. In ordering therein the
reinstatement of said employees with back wages from the date of
their dismissal to the date of their reinstatement, and without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, it is
obvious that the resolution intended to restore the employees to their
status immediately prior to their dismissal. chanroblespublishingcompany
Hence, it directed, not only their reinstatement, but, also, the
payment of their back wages during the period of their lay-off thus
referring necessarily to a period of time preceding their reinstatement
and the retention of their seniority or other rights and privileges.
Rights and privileges at what time? Certainly, not after their
reinstatement, but at the time of their aforementioned dismissal. In
other words, the reinstatement was with back wages for the lay-off
period, coupled with the seniority or other rights and privileges,
attached to the status of the employees when they were dismissed. To
put it differently, the CIR treated said employees as if they had not
been absent from work and had been uninterruptedly working during
the lay-off period.
chanroblespublishingcompany
Thus, in Republic Steel Corporation vs. NLRB (114 F. 2d. 820), it was
held that, under a decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals and Order of
the National Labor Relations Board directing the employer to
reinstate the striking employees without prejudice to their seniority
or other rights or privileges, it was the intention of the Board and
Court to provide that, upon reinstatement the employees were to be
treated in matters involving seniority and continuity of employment
as though they had not been absent from work, and hence the
reinstated employees were entitled to the benefits of the employers
vacation plan for the year in which they were reinstated and
subsequent years upon the basis of continuity of service computed as
though they had been actually at work during the entire period from
the date of strike to the date of reinstatement.
chanroblespublishingcompany
As a consequence, the employees involved in the case at bar are
entitled to the Christmas bonus that PAL had given to all of its
employees during said period, for said bonus, having been paid
regularly, has become part of the compensation of the employees.[1]
Said employees are, likewise, entitled to transportation allowance and
the corresponding sick leave privileges. These sick leave privileges are
subject, however, to the following qualifications, namely: (1) that the
accumulated sick leave cannot exceed 140 days, pursuant to the
collective bargaining agreement between the PAL and the PALEA,
effective in 1959; and (2) that, pursuant to the same agreement,
which denies sick leave privileges to retired employees, Onofre Grio
and Bernardino Abarrientos, who have retired, are not entitled to said
privileges.
The PALS appeal as regards the free trip passes is, however, well
taken, for the employees had no absolute right thereto, even if they
had actually rendered services during the lay-off period. The free trip
passes were given, neither automatically, nor indiscriminately. The
employees had to apply therefor and their applications were subject
to PALS approval.
WHEREFORE, except as to the free trip passes for the layoff period,
which should not be deemed included in the rights and privileges
awarded in the resolution of July 13, 1954, and subject to the
qualification that the accumulated sick leave privileges cannot exceed
140 days, the appealed resolution of October 8, 1962, is hereby
affirmed in all other respects, without special pronouncement as to
costs. It is so ordered.
Reyes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar,
Sanchez and Ruiz Castro, JJ., concur. chanroblespublishingcompany
chanroblespublishingcompany
[1] Almonte vs. American Drug Co., L-14922, August 31, 1959; Ansay vs. Board of
Directors, L-13667, April 29, 1960.
chanroblespublishingcompany
