Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Ligan PDF
Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Ligan PDF
Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Ligan PDF
RESOLUTION
REYES , J : p
This resolves the Motion for Reconsideration 1 of the Court's Resolution 2 dated
November 12, 2012 denying the petition outright for failure to show reversible error in
the Decision 3 dated February 15, 2012 and Resolution 4 dated September 27, 2012 of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB SP No. 00922, which dismissed the petition
for review on certiorari of Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) from the Decision 5 dated
August 27, 2004 and Resolution 6 dated April 25, 2005 of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC), 4th Division, Cebu City in NLRC Case No. V-000112-2000. HTcADC
The Facts
PAL and Synergy Services Corporation (Synergy) entered into a station services
agreement and a janitorial services agreement whereby Synergy provided janitors and
station attendants to PAL at Mactan airport. Enrique Ligan, Eduardo Magdaraog, Jolito
Oliveros, Richard Goncer, Emelito Soco, Virgilio P. Campos, Jr., Lorenzo Butanas, Ramel
Bernardes, Nelson M. Dulce, Clemente R. Lumayno, Arthur M. Capin, Allan Bentuzal, and
Jeffrey Llenes (respondents) were among the personnel of Synergy posted at PAL to
carry out the contracted tasks. Claiming to be performing duties directly desirable and
necessary to the business of PAL, the respondents, along with 12 other co-employees,
led complaints in March 1992 against PAL and Synergy in the NLRC Region VII Of ce
in Cebu City for regularization of their status as employees of PAL, underpayment of
salaries and non-payment of premium pay for holidays, premium pay for rest days,
service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay and allowances. 7
In the Decision dated August 29, 1994, the Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled that Synergy
was an independent contractor and dismissed the complaint for regularization, but
granted the complainants' money claims. 8 On appeal, the NLRC, 4th Division, Cebu City
on January 5, 1996 declared Synergy a labor-only contractor and ordered PAL to accept
the complainants as regular employees and as such, to pay their salaries, allowances
and other bene ts under the Collective Bargaining Agreement subsisting during the
period of their employment. 9 PAL went to this Court on certiorari, but pursuant to St.
Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC , 10 the case was referred to the CA. On September 29,
2000, the CA, in CA-G.R. SP No. 52329, affirmed the NLRC in toto. 11
On petition for review, this Court, on February 29, 2008, af rmed but modi ed the
NLRC decision, 12 as follows:
WHEREFORE , the [CA] Decision of September 29, 2000 is AFFIRMED
with MODIFICATION.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
[PAL] is ORDERED to:
a) accept respondents ENRIQUE LIGAN, EMELITO SOCO, ALLAN PANQUE,
JOLITO OLIVEROS, RICHARD GONCER, NONILON PILAPIL, AQUILINO
YBANEZ, BERNABE SANDOVAL, RUEL GONCER, VIRGILIO P. CAMPOS, JR.,
ARTHUR M. CAPIN, RAMEL BERNARDES, LORENZO BUTANAS, BENSON
CARESUSA, JEFFREY LLENOS, ROQUE PILAPIL, ANTONIO M. PAREJA,
CLEMENTE R. LUMAYNO, NELSON TAMPUS, ROLANDO TUNACAO,
CHERRIE ALEGRES, EDUARDO MAGDADARAUG, NELSON M. DULCE and
ALLAN BENTUZAL as its regular employees in their same or substantially
equivalent positions, and pay the wages and bene ts due them as
regular employees plus salary differential corresponding to the
difference between the wages and bene ts given them and those granted
to petitioner's other regular employees of the same rank; and
b) pay respondent BENEDICTO AUXTERO salary differential; backwages
from the time of his dismissal until the nality of this decision; and
separation pay , in lieu of reinstatement, equivalent to one (1) month pay
for every year of service until the finality of this decision.
There being no data from which this Court may determine the monetary
liabilities of petitioner, the case is REMANDED to the [LA] solely for that purpose.
SO ORDERED. 13 (Emphasis, italics and underscoring in the original)
On motion for reconsideration by PAL, the Court on April 30, 2009 modi ed the
above decision, 14 to read as follows:
WHEREFORE , the [CA] Decision of September 29, 2000 is AFFIRMED
with MODIFICATION. aScITE
A.
In the illegal dismissal cases before the LA, the issue was whether the
termination of the respondents' employment by Synergy in June 1998 was without just
cause and observance of due process. In the instant petition, PAL argues in the main
that in reversing the LA, the NLRC (in NLRC Case No. V-000112-2000) cited for its
factual and legal basis an inexistent CA decision, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 50138.
Culling from its own "Compliance" dated April 4, 2006 in CA-G.R. CEB SP No. 00922, 32
PAL tells the Court that CA-G.R. SP No. 50138 is actually entitled "Anita Danao, Owner
of Wonder Baker v. NLRC and Eufemio Famis", not "Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. NLRC" as
mistakenly mentioned by the NLRC, and that it was promulgated on December 31,
1999, not April 30, 1999; that a veri cation with the CA docket section showed that
another PAL case, CA-G.R. SP No. 50161, is actually dated April 30, 1999 and involved
the issue of payment of 13th month pay to PAL employees, but had nothing to do with
Synergy or its status as a labor-only contractor; and, that what was actually elevated
from the NLRC, 4th Division, to this Court, and then referred to the CA pursuant to St.
Martin Funeral Home, was CA-G.R. SP No. 52329, decided on September 29, 2000, not
CA-G.R. SP No. 50138.
In its assailed decision, the CA pointed out that both CA-G.R. SP No. 00922 and
CA-G.R. SP No. 52329 involve the same facts and employer, PAL, and the herein
respondents were among the complainants in the regularization cases. Noting that this
Court in G.R. No. 146408 has ruled that the respondents were regular employees of
PAL, the CA ruled that they cannot be whimsically terminated by PAL but it must show
that: (1) their dismissal was for any of the causes authorized in Article 282 of the Labor
Code; and (2) they were given opportunity to be heard and to defend theirselves. 33
Article 282 of the Labor Code reads:
ART. 282. Termination by employer. — An employer may terminate an
employment for any of the following causes:
a. Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the
lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with
his work;
b. Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
c. Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him
by his employer or duly authorized representative;
d. Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the
person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or
his duly authorized representatives; and
e. Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
According to the CA, PAL failed to show that the respondents were guilty of any
of the causes above-mentioned. Neither was due process observed by PAL in
dismissing them, who were merely noti ed of their termination through a notice sent to
them by Synergy, which reads.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
PAL has terminated our contract effective June 30, 1998. In view of this
contract termination by PAL, our contract with employees like you who have
been contracted as Station Loader/Station Attendant, will be terminated also on
30 June 1998.
Please be guided accordingly. 34
Moreover, PAL cannot deny that all along it had always known of the ruling in CA-
G.R. SP No. 52329, which as PAL itself also pointed out, was elevated for review to this
Court in G.R. No. 146408. PAL is aware that G.R. No. 146408 was decided on February
29, 2008, and its motion for reconsideration was resolved on April 30, 2009, whereas
the instant petition was led only on November 6, 2012. As the petitioner in CA-G.R. SP
No. 52329, PAL even attached in Annex "E" of this petition a copy of the decision in CA-
G.R. SP No. 52329. 35 PAL has thus always known that the issue therein was whether
Synergy was a labor-only contractor or a legitimate contractor; that the respondents
were adjudged as regular employees of PAL entitled to all the bene ts of its regular
employees, that Synergy was a labor-only contractor and thus a mere agent of PAL.
As the petitioner in G.R. No. 146408, PAL certainly cannot pretend ignorance of
the Court's decision therein. Moreover, on April 28, 2008, the respondents had
manifested in CA-G.R. CEB SP No. 00922 that a decision had been rendered in G.R. No.
146408, 36 with a copy thereof attached; on May 26, 2008, PAL itself also manifested
that it had led a motion for reconsideration in G.R. No. 146408, which then prompted
the CA to suspend the resolution of CA-G.R. CEB SP No. 00922, since the regularization
cases are intimately connected to the illegal dismissal cases.
In Resolution dated April 30, 2009 in G.R. No. 146408, this Court mentioned that
PAL had revealed for the rst time in its Motion for Reconsideration the matter of the
lay-off of the respondents on June 30, 1998 due to nancial woes; 37 that the
respondents likewise disclosed that they were all terminated in June 1998 in the guise
of retrenchment. Except for the employees who had died, they either accepted
settlement earlier, or had been declared as employee of Synergy. 38
The Court further noted that PAL in its motion for reconsideration from the CA's
decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 52329 also invoked its nancial dif culties, not by way of
defense to a charge of illegal dismissal but to manifest that supervening events had
rendered it impossible to comply with the order to accept the respondents as regular
employees. 39
In G.R. No. 146408, the Court noted that the termination of the respondents in
June 1998 was in disregard of a subsisting temporary restraining order which the Court
issued in 1996 to preserve the status quo, before the case was transferred to the CA in
January 1999. The Court also held that PAL failed to establish such economic losses
which rendered impossible its compliance with the order to accept the respondent as
regular employees. Thus: ATICcS
2. Id. at 550.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
3. Penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, with Associate Justices Myra V.
Garcia-Fernandez and Abraham B. Borreta concurring; id. at 22-35.
4. Penned by Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino, with Associate Justices Edgardo
L. Delos Santos and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles concurring; id. at 37-42.
5. Penned by Presiding Commissioner Gerardo C. Nograles, with Commissioners Edgardo M.
Enerlan and Oscar S. Uy concurring; id. at 68-73.
6. Id. at 75-77.
7. Id. at 23.
8. Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Ligan, et al., 570 Phil. 497, 502-503 (2008).
9. Id. at 503-504.
10. 356 Phil. 811 (1998).
11. Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Ligan, et al., supra note 8, at 504; rollo, p. 24.
12. Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Ligan, et al., 570 Phil. 497 (2008).