Fasap v. Pal - October 2, 2009

7/27/2019 Fasap v. Pal - October 2, 2009

1/13

LIGHT ATTENDANTS AND STEWARDS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (FASAP), petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES,

NC., PATRIA CHIONG and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

NARES-SANTIAGO, J p:

or resolution is respondent Philippine Airlines, Inc.'s (PAL) Motion for Reconsideration1of our Decision of July 22, 2008, the

spositive portion of which provides:

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.

87956 dated August 23, 2006, which affirmed the Decision of the NLRC setting aside the Labor Arbiter's findings

of illegal retrenchment and its Resolution of May 29, 2007 denying the motion for reconsideration, are

REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one is rendered:

1.FINDING respondent Philippine Airlines, Inc. GUILTY of illegal dismissal; 2.ORDERING Philippine Airlines, Inc. to reinstate the cabin crew personnel who were covered by the

retrenchment and demotion scheme of June 15, 1998 made effective on July 15, 1998, without loss of

seniority rights and other privileges, and to pay them full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other

monetary benefits computed from the time of their separation up to the time of their actual

reinstatement, provided that with respect to those who had received their respective separation pay,

the amounts of payments shall be deducted from their backwages. Where reinstatement is no longer

feasible because the positions previously held no longer exist, respondent Corporation shall pay

backwages plus, in lieu of reinstatement, separation pay equal to one (1) month pay for every year of

service;

3.ORDERING Philippine Airlines, Inc. to pay attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total

monetary award.Costs against respondent PAL.

SO ORDERED.

its Motion for Reconsideration, PAL maintains that it was suffering from financial distress which justified the retrenchment

ore than 1,400 of its flight attendants. This, it argued, was an established fact. Furthermore, FASAP never assailed the econo

asis for the retrenchment, but only the allegedly discriminatory and baseless manner by which it was carried out.

AL asserts that it has presented proof of its claimed losses by attaching its petition for suspension of payments, as well as the

ne 23, 1998 Order of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approving the said petition for suspension of payments

s Motion to Dismiss and/or Consolidation of Case filed with the Labor Arbiter in NLRC-NCR Case No. 06-05100-98, or the labo

ase subject of the herein petition. Also attached to the petition for suspension of payments were its audited financial statem

r its fiscal year ending March 1998, and interim financial statements as of the end of the month prior to the filing of its petit

r suspension of payments, as well as:

a)A summary of its debts and other liabilities;

b)A summary of its assets and properties;

c)List of its equity security shareholders showing the name of the security holder and the kind of interest

registered in the name of each holder;

d)A schedule which contains a full and true statement of all of its debts and liabilities, together with a list of all

those to whom said debts and liabilities are due;

e)An inventory which contains an accurate description of all the real and personal property, estate and effects

of PAL, together with a statement of the value of each item of said property, estate and effects, their respective

location and a statement of the encumbrances thereon.

the instant Motion for Reconsideration, PAL attached a copy of its audited financial statements for fiscal years 1996, 1997 a998. It justifies the submission before the Court of Appeals of its 2002-2004, and not the 1996-1998, audited financial

atements, to show that as of the time of their submission with the Court of Appeals, PAL was still under rehabilitation, and n

r the purpose of establishing its financial problems during the retrenchment period.

AL asserts further that the Court should have accorded the SEC's findings as regards its financial condition respect and finalit

onsidering that said findings were based on the financial statements and other documents submitted to it, which PAL now

ubmits, albeit belatedly, via the instant Motion for Reconsideration. It cites the case ofClarion Printing House Inc. v. National

abor Relations Commission,2where the Court declared that the appointment of a receiver or management committee by th

EC presupposes a finding that, inter alia, a company possesses sufficient property to cover all its debts but foresees the

mpossibility of meeting them when they respectively fall due and there is imminent danger of dissipation, loss, wastage or

estruction of assets or other properties or paralyzation of business operations. On the other hand, it claims that in Rivera v.
http://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnotes


2/13

spiritu,3the Court made a finding that as a result of the pilots' three-week strike that began on June 5, 1998, PAL's financial

tuation went from bad to worse and it was faced with bankruptcy, requiring it to seek rehabilitation and downsize its labor f

y more than one-third; and that said pilots' strike was immediately followed by another four-day employee-wide strike on Ju

2, 1998, which involved 1,899 union4members.

AL likewise cites previous decisions of the Court which declared a suspension of claims against it in light of pending rehabilit

roceedings and the issuance of a stay order in the enforcement of all claims, whether for money or otherwise, which is effec

om the date of its issuance until the dismissal of the petition or the termination of the rehabilitation proceedings.5Moreov

aims that the infusion of $200 million in PAL in June 1999 is proof of the airline's financial distress, and was a condition sine

on if PAL's Amended and Restated Rehabilitation Plan were to be approved by the SEC, and if the absolute closure of PAL we

e averted.AL underscores that its situation in 1998 was unique, as it had to contend with

the very distinct possibility that its losses would eventually result in default on its payments to creditors for its

aircraft leases. If that happened, creditors could have immediately seized all its leased planes and that would

have spelled PAL's demise. The petition for rehabilitation and suspension of payments was precisely intended to

avoid PAL's collapse and eventual liquidation.

xercising its management prerogative and sound business judgment, it decided to cut its fleet of aircraft in order to minimize

perating losses and rescue itself from "total downfall"; which meant that a corresponding company-wide reduction in manp

ecessarily had to be made. As a result, 5,000 PAL employees (including the herein 1,400 cabin attendants) were retrenched.

urther, PAL argues that aside from the confluence of simultaneous unfortunate events that occurred during the time, like

uccessive strikes, peso depreciation and the Asian currency crisis, there was a serious drop in passenger traffic whichecessitated the closure of PAL's entire European, Australian, and Middle East operations and numerous Asian stations, as we

ome of its domestic stations. Consequently, its 27 international routes were reduced to only 7, and its 37 domestic routes to

7.

AL claims that it did not act with undue haste in effecting the mass retrenchment of cabin attendants since, as early as Febru

7, 1998, consultations were being held in connection with the proposed retrenchment, and that twice-weekly meetings betw

e union and the airline were being held since February 12, 1998. It claims that it took PAL four months before the retrenchm

heme was finally implemented.

With regard to the implementation of Plan 22 instead of the original Plan 14, PAL asserts that, in so doing, it should not be fou

uilty of bad faith. It sets out the chronology of events that led it to implement Plan 22 instead of Plan 14, thus:

The initial plan was, indeed, to reduce PAL's fleet from 54 planes to 14. With a smaller fleet, PAL necessarily had

to reduce manpower accordingly, and this was the basis for the retrenchment. The retrenchment was done on

the basis of the conditions and circumstances existing at that time. However, a series of events ensued

PAL was placed under corporate rehabilitation by the SEC on June 23, 1998.

Later, on July 22, 1998, the rank-and-file employees belonging to PALEA staged a strike.

Then, on August 28, 1998, President Joseph Ejercito Estrada issued Administrative Order No. 16 creating Inter-

Agency Task Force to aid PAL and its employees in solving the problem. TCcSDE

On September 4, 1998, PAL submitted an offer to the Task Force of a plan to transfer shares of stocks to its

employees with a request to suspend existing Collective Bargaining Agreements, which was later rejected by the

employees.

On September 23, 1998, PAL ceased operations.

Then, President Estrada intervened again through the request of PAL employees. PALEA made an offer, which

was rejected by PAL. Finally, PALEA made an offer again which was successfully ratified by the employees onOctober 2, 1998 and accepted by PAL.

Subsequently, PAL partially resumed domestic operations on October 7, 1998 believing that the mutually

beneficial terms of the suspension agreement could possibly redeem PAL. Later, it partially resumed its

operations internationally (Los Angeles and San Francisco, United States).

True enough, with some degree of relief as a result of the suspension of payment and rehabilitation proceedings

in the SEC and the suspension of the CBA, PAL began to see slow but steady improvements. Also, airline industry

experts who were commissioned by PAL to assist in drafting its Amended and Restated Rehabilitation Plan came

to a conclusion that PAL had to increase its fleet of planes to improve its financial and operational viability. This

advice was adopted by PAL in its Amended and Restated Rehabilitation Plan, which was eventually approved by

the SEC.
http://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnotes


3/13

With these supervening events, PAL decided to implement Plan 22 upon reevaluation and optimistic future

projection for its operations. The decision to abandon Plan 14 was not done with precipitate haste. The

Honorable Court should appreciate that the chain of unfolding events after the retrenchment encouraged PAL,

in the exercise of its sound business discretion, to implement Plan 22. This was not a capricious decision. In fact,

the SEC approved PAL's Amended and Restated Rehabilitation Plan, which includes, among others, PAL's Fleet

Plan composed of 22 planes.

Neither does it show that PAL was uncertain of its financial condition when it retrenched based on Plan 14. PAL

would not have even petitioned the SEC for its rehabilitation were it not certain of its dire financial state. The

decision to later abandon Plan 14 was a business judgment that PAL made in good faith upon the advice of

foreign airline industry experts and in light of the supervening circumstances explained above.

In this regard, this Honorable Court has once held that

"Questions of policy or of management are left solely to the honest decision of the board as the

business manager of the corporation, and the court is without authority to substitute its judgment for

that of the board, and as long as it acts in good faith and in the exercise of honest judgment in the

interest of the corporation, its orders are not reviewable by the courts."

On the basis of Plan 22, PAL decided to recall/rehire some of the retrenched employees.

With due respect, this Honorable Court is mistaken in its ruling that PAL acted in bad faith simply because it

later on decided to recall or rehire the employees it initially retrenched. The decision to recall/rehire was a

logical consequence of PAL's decision to increase its fleet from 14 to 22 planes, which as discussed earlier, was a

business judgment exercised in good faith by PAL after a series of significant events.

PAL did not even have any legal obligation to rehire the employees who have already been paid their separation

pay and who have executed valid quitclaims. PAL, instead of being accused of bad faith for rehiring theseemployees, should in fact be commended. That the retrenched employees were given priority in hiring is

certainly not bad faith. Noteworthy is the fact that PAL never hired NEW employees until November 2000 or

more than 2 years after the 1998 retrenchment. IcTEaC

It is respectfully submitted that the legality of the retrenchment could not be made to depend on the fact that

PAL recalled/rehired some of the employees after five months without taking into account the supervening

events. At the exact time of retrenchment, PAL was not in a position to know with certainty that it could

actually recover from the precarious financial problem it was facing and, if so, when.

The only thing PAL knew at that exact point in time was that it was in its most critical condition when its

liabilities amounted to about Php85,109,075,351.00, while its assets amounted to only about

Php90,642,330,919.00 aggravated by many other circumstances as explained earlier. At the time of the

retrenchment in June 1998, PAL was at the brink of total collapse and it could not have known that in five

months, there will be supervening events that will impel it to reassess its initial decisions.

xxx xxx xxx

In the present case, PAL beseeches this Honorable Court to take a second look at the peculiar facts and

circumstances that clearly show that the recall/rehire was done in good faith. These facts and circumstances

make the case of PAL totally different from the other cases decided by this Honorable Court where it found bad

faith on the part of the employer for immediately rehiring or hiring employees after retrenchment.

xxx xxx xxx

But even then, PAL still endeavored to recall or rehire the maximum number of FASAP members that it could.

Thus, out of the 1,423 FASAP members who were retrenched, 496 were eventually recalled or reinstated (those

who did not receive separation pay and opted to resume their employment with PAL with no loss of seniority).

On the other hand, 321 FASAP members were rehired (those who received separation pay and voluntarily

rejoined PAL as new employees). In this regard, PAL would like to take exception to the Honorable Court'sobservation that these employees were taken in as new hires without due regard to their long years of service.

The FASAP members who were rehired as new employees were those who already received their separation

pay because of the retrenchment but voluntarily accepted PAL's offer for them to be rehired when Plan 22 was

implemented. It cannot be said that they were prejudiced by the rehire process, as they already "cashed in" on

their tenure when they accepted the separation pay. That they later on accepted PAL's offer to rehire them as

new employees was purely voluntary on their part.

Meanwhile, around 591 FASAP members opted not to return anymore after receiving their full separation pay.

Thus, including those who voluntarily opted not to resume their employment with PAL, only about 591 can be

considered to have remained unrecalled or unrehired.

It is significant to mention that FASAP directly and actively participated in the recall process, and even suggested

the names of its members for prospective recall.


4/13


5/13

2.If the reduction of purser OCARs would involve more than the number of pursers who have

not attained an efficiency rating of 85%, then pursers who have attained an efficiency

rating of 85% shall be downgraded to international Cabin Attendant in the inverse order

of seniority.

B.In reducing the number of international Cabin Attendants due to reduction in international Cabin

Attendant OCARs, the same process in paragraph A shall be observed. International Cabin

Attendants shall be downgraded to domestic.

C.In the event of reduction of domestic OCARs thereby necessitating the retrenchment of personnel,

the same process shall be observed.

In no case, however, shall a regular Cabin Attendant be separated from the service in the event of retrenchment

until all probationary or contractual Cabin Attendant in the entire Cabin Attendants Corps, in that order, shallhave been retrenched. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

AL asserts that since efficiency ratings for each cabin or flight attendant are computed on an annual basis, it should therefor

ean that when Section 112 referred to "an" efficiency rating of 85%, then it should logically and practically follow that only

ear's worth of performance should be used as criteria for the retrenchment of cabin attendants that is, the most recent

fficiency rating obtained by each of them. For purposes of the present case, it would necessarily be that for the year 1997, or

ear immediately prior to the retrenchment, and no other.

nally, regarding the quitclaims executed, PAL maintains that since the retrenchment scheme it implemented was essentially

alid, then it should follow that the quitclaims are regular as well, and more so given the absence of mistake, duress, fraud or

isrepresentation.

its Comment9to PAL's Motion for Reconsideration, FASAP asserts that the issue is not centered on PAL's financial conditio

hether the retrenchment of the 1,400 cabin personnel was warranted. It alleges that:

The issue is whether or not the nature and extent of the financial circumstances and the methods used to

resolve fiscal difficulties warranted the illegal and unceremonious dismissal of around 1,400 flight attendants,

stewards, and cabin crew. It was the termination without considering the legal factors for retrenchment.

Because of the difficulties that the entire nation was going through, the ostensible name given was

retrenchment. But it was really an illegal dismissal and arbitrary termination. . . . TcSHaD

The casualties of illegal action, the ones sacrificed in the early stages of the situation and not as a last resort, are

not the employer and its officers or owner. As the Honorable Court pointed out, the questioned action struck at

the very heart of the workers' employment, the lifeblood upon which the worker and his family owe their

survival. No proof has been adduced in ten long years of litigation that retrenchment was only a measure of last

resort, (that) other less drastic means were considered and tried and found inadequate.

xxx xxx xxx

The Court has treated the instant case for what it truly is an illegal retrenchment, one that was prematurely

done and whimsically carried out. . . .

This is about a "bad faith" retrenchment one which neither complied with the legal prerequisites therefor nor

observed the provisions of the PAL-FASAP CBA thereon; one which was not employed as a last resort and which

did not have any fair and reasonable criteria to serve as basis for selecting who would be retrenched; one which

was capriciously and whimsically implemented; one which was illegally made.

ASAP declares that although it recognized PAL's financial difficulties in 1997 and 1998, it never conceded the same to be valid

ason upon which to base the questioned retrenchment, citing that in proceedings below, the reasonable necessity of the

trenchment and its effectiveness in preventing losses to PAL had been squarely raised. FASAP maintains that prior negotiatiith PAL (on the possible implementation of cost-cutting measures, employee rotation plans, triple and quadruple room shar

rangements, allocation of vacation leaves without pay, etc.) is proof of that recognition, but that ultimately, it was incumbe

pon PAL to have shown that it undertook a retrenchment scheme that was in proportion to and commensurate with the fina

stress it was experiencing at the time.

ssentially, FASAP merely echoed our pronouncements, focusing upon our dissertation on each of the elements required in o

o justify retrenchment, most of which were found lacking in PAL's retrenchment program or scheme. Specifically, FASAP poin

e lack of prior resort to cost-cutting measures, the rehiring of probationary employees, prior assurances by PAL that

trenchment was no longer necessary, and lack of fair and reasonable criteria in selecting the employees to retrench.

pecifically, mention is made that there is nothing in its then existing CBA with PAL which mandates that a single year 1997

hould be used as the gauge or measure for determining the flight attendants' performance for purposes of retrenchment.
http://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnotes


6/13


7/13

sections". The nature of work of each assistant superintendent as well as experience were taken into

account by management. Such criteria was not shown to be whimsical nor carpricious (sic).13

nally, FASAP claims that PAL did not provide reasons for retrenching the more than 1,400 flight attendants; that it was only

hen it filed its Supplemental Memorandum before the Labor Arbiter in March 2000 that the airline submitted in evidence th

CD Masterank and Seniority 1997 Ratings, which allegedly took into account the subjective factors such as appearance and

rooming, which supposedly require the written conformity of its members if they were to be considered at all, in accordance

ith Section 124, Article XXVI of the CBA.

y way of reply to FASAP's Comment, PAL insists that its decision to downsize the flight fleet was the principal reason why it h

o put into effect a corresponding downsizing of cabin crew personnel; that the reduction in fleet size was an integral part of EC-approved rehabilitation plan; that the reduction in the number of its aircraft by 75% from 54 to just 14 likewise

ecessitated a corresponding 75% reduction in its total cabin crew personnel; and that its subsequent decision to increase its

emaining fleet from 14 aircraft to 22 was a "business judgment exercised in good faith after a series of significant events and

pon the advice of airline industry experts who were assisting it in its rehabilitation efforts".14This increase from 14 to 22

rcraft was then included in its Amended and Restated Rehabilitation Plan, which was subsequently approved by the SEC.

ecause of this, it then had to increase its manpower; it recalled or rehired the services of the employees it had previously

rminated.

AL begs the Court to recognize this downsizing of aircraft as a valid exercise of its management prerogative to close its busin

perations, and not merely to reduce personnel. In other words, PAL would have the Court believe that its retrenchment prog

not merely a reduction of personnel for the purpose of cutting on costs of operations, but as a closure of its business, aessation of business operations to prevent further financial drain.15PAL argues that cost-cutting measures could not have

ufficed to nurse the airline back to financial health; it had to resort to partial closure of its business. Thus:

18.Moreover, how can PAL possibly implement the cost-cutting measures allegedly suggested by FASAP with

75% of its fleet already gone? The situation would be different if PAL retained its 54-plane fleet, and PAL's only

concern was to save on salaries and wages. In such a situation, PAL is indeed obliged to resort to "less drastic

cost-cutting measures" before it can validly proceed with retrenchment. But this is not the case here. PAL's

financial condition could not have improved by merely adopting cost-cutting measures such as work rotation

and forced leaves. In fact, retrenchment alone could not have saved PAL from financial ruin. PAL had to resort

to the drastic action of partially closing its business operations by downsizing its fleet of aircrafts. This naturally

resulted in the reduction of PAL's personnel.

19.Assuming arguendo that the jurisprudence relied upon by FASAP apply, the proven facts in this case show

that retrenchment was not the only option for PAL. The problem with FASAP is that it is taking a myopic view of

what truly happened. It stubbornly claims that the reduction of employees is a simple case of retrenchment

program that was implemented in the first instance. But it is clear from the record that when PAL suffered

serious business losses, retrenchment was not the only option, obviously because the objective was to cut down

on operating expenses as a whole, and not merely in terms of salaries and wages, which is the only purpose of a

retrenchment.

20.What PAL did was to reduce its fleet of 54 planes to only 14 planes. It was only after PAL reduced its fleet of

aircrafts that it had to terminate the employment of its employees who were already in excess of the workforce

required under the reduced fleet set-up. In other words, retrenchment was merely a necessary and natural

consequence of PAL's earlier decision to downsize its fleet of aircrafts. There is thus simply no basis to say that

PAL implemented retrenchment in the first instance.

xxx xxx xxx22.Neither is there basis to FASAP's claim that PAL made the assurance that there will be no more need for

retrenchment. How could have PAL given such assurance in light of its huge business losses, bordering on

bankruptcy? The truth is, no such assurance was ever given by PAL. This is clear in the minutes of all of the

meetings with FASAP where the only issue discussed was how to proceed with the retrenchment. These

meetings were held in February to April 1998, or two to three months before the decision to reduce operations

was made by PAL due to various serious supervening events the strike staged by the Airline Pilots Association

of the Philippines (ALPAP) and by the Philippine Airlines Employees Association (PALEA).

n the use of efficiency ratings obtained for the year 1997 as singular basis for determining the fitness of cabin crew personn

ontinue working with it, PAL explains that


8/13

24.There is nothing unreasonable in using the year 1997 as basis for arriving at the efficiency ratings. FASAP's

insinuations that it ignored the employees' alleged exceptional performance ratings and exemplary attendance

records in the past are simply baseless, misleading and erroneous.

24.1.First, while an employee may rack up hundreds of awards and commendations and hundreds of

hours of leave credits, it does not necessarily follow that the same employee, although admittedly of

exceptional caliber, cannot be terminated if just or authorized cause subsequently exists. For instance, if

there is redundancy, an employee holding a superfluous position may be terminated regardless of

numerous awards and leave credits he may have earned. In this case, it cannot be denied that PAL's

reduction, or partial closure, of its business operations, i.e., downsizing its flight fleet from 54 to 14

aircrafts, in order to prevent business losses and avoid total closure of its business, is one of the

recognized authorized causes expressly provided under Article 283 of the Labor Code. CEHcSIPAL could, therefore, retrench employees regardless of the number of commendations, awards and

accumulated leave credits the latter obtained in the course of employment provided, of course, that the

retrenchment is valid and legal. In this case, the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the Court of

Appeals unanimously found that the retrenchment is intrinsically valid and legal based on the same set

of evidence. In fact, the Labor Arbiter categorically ruled:

. . . there is no question that the rules imposed by law and jurisprudence to sustain

retrenchment have been amply satisfied by PAL. The only issue at hand is whether or not the

retrenchment can be upheld for complying with rules set forth in the collective bargaining

agreement.

24.2.Second, in implementing retrenchment, the law does not require an employer to look back into far

reaches of time to check every good deed performed by every employee. This would not only be highlyimpractical, but manifestly absurd as well. In evaluating job efficiency, it is enough for an employer to

fix a determinate time frame within which to base its evaluation. It can be six months, one year, two

years, three years or ten years. It can in fact be any period of time, subject to management's sound

discretion.

But to be fair and reasonable, the application of the period must be uniform and consistent. It cannot

be one year for employee A, two years for employee B and three years for employee C. In this case, PAL

selected a period of one year (the year 1997), which was uniformly and consistently applied to all,

without exception.

The year 1997 was chosen by PAL as it was the most logical period being the year immediately

preceding the retrenchment. All relevant records for the year 1997, such as attendance and

performance evaluation, were complete and accurate. Certainly, the year 1997 was not selected for the

purpose of discriminating against any employee, but with the sole objective of retaining the more

efficient among the employees.

xxx xxx xxx

26.FASAP then insists that the basic criterion to effect lay-off or retrenchment is seniority. FASAP cites Article

VII, Section 23 of the PAL-FASAP 1995-2000 CBA:

The term "seniority" whenever used in this Agreement shall be deemed to mean a measure of a regular Cabin

Attendant's claim in relation to other regular Cabin Attendants holding similar positions, to preferential

consideration whenever the Company exercises its right to promote to a higher paying position or lay-off of any

Cabin Attendant.

27.FASAP obviously misread and misinterpreted Section 23 of the PAL-FASAP 1995-2000 CBA. The provision

does not even mandate seniority to be a criterion whenever PAL implements a reduction or retrenchment,

much less does it say that seniority is the one and only criterion to be applied. Section 23 simply definesseniority and states that seniority may be given "preferential consideration" whenever PAL exercises its right to

promote to a higher paying position or lay-off of cabin attendants. PAL did just that in complying with Section

112 of the PAL-FASAP CBA 1995-2000 when seniority was applied whenever all other factors were found to be

equal. PAL clearly followed Section 23 of the PAL-FASAP CBA in giving seniority preferential consideration. This

is also reflected in the tabulation made by the NLRC in its Decision.

AL argues that in its past two CBAs with FASAP prior to the one under controversy, the same provisions and criteria for

ppearance, grooming, efficiency and performance were used, without objections having been advanced by FASAP.

uring oral arguments, PAL advanced an altogether new line of reasoning that has, until now, never been advanced as the

rimary argument in defense of its retrenchment scheme: that the principal and true reason why PAL had to implement the

ass lay-off of cabin personnel was not the downsizing of aircraft fleet size, but the June 5, 1998 pilots' strike , where


9/13

pproximately six hundred (600) of its pilots apparently abandoned their planes and simultaneously refused to fly. Thus, coun

r PAL manifested to the Court that

ATTY. MENDOZA

As a consequence, if your Honor please, but what really brought about, shall we say, "the really perilous

situation of closure was that on June 5, 1998, the pilots went on strike , ninety (90%) per cent of the pilots

went on strike, approximately six hundred (600)". These pilots' strike was so devastating because the pilots, if

your Honors please, even left their place where they were at the time, somewhere in Bangkok, somewhere in

Taipei and they just left the planes. Without any pilots no plane can fly, your Honor, that is the stark reality of

the situation, and without airplanes flying, th

s a result of this pilots' strike, PAL claims to have suffered daily revenue losses equivalent to P100 million and P50 million of

xed costs, which came at a time when PAL had "no more money". 19Owing to this pilots' strike, PAL was brought to the brin

saster and emergency that it needed to align the number of cabin attendants with the number of airplanes that were

ying.20After the pilots went on strike, PAL was left with only 68 pilots who chose to remain, but with 2,039 cabin attendant

aced with this disproportionate ratio of pilots to cabin attendants, PAL immediately decided to terminate the services of mo

an 1,400 cabin attendants via the retrenchment scheme in question. At the same time, the reduction in fleet which until

me remained a mere proposal had to be immediately implemented, and cost-cutting measures were simply out of the

uestion. Thus:

ATTY. MENDOZA

While meetings between PAL and FASAP may have occurred prior to June 1998 to discuss measures in which to

possibly avoid retrenchment with its planned reduction of fleet, PAL's financial circumstances drasticallychanged in June 1998 that necessitated immediate and corresponding measures. Harsh reality was that, there

simply was no time. FASAP-suggested less drastic measures of work rotation, forced vacation leaves, hotel

sharing etc. were no longer feasible. Indeed, reduction by about 5,000 employees, including 1,423 cabin crew,

was the less drastic measure. The alternative, harsher obviously, was closure and liquidation.21(Emphasis

supplied)

l throughout, it has been impressed upon us that PAL's decision to downsize its fleet size is the principal reason why it had t

ut into effect a corresponding downsizing of cabin crew personnel. However, on oral arguments before us, PAL now makes a

otal turnaround and attributes the retrenchment to the June 5, 1998 pilots' strike. Repeatedly, counsel for PAL blamed the pi

rike as the main culprit, thus:

ATTY. MENDOZA

As a consequence, if your Honor please, but what really brought about, shall we say, "the really perilous

situation of closure was that on June 5, 1998, the pilots went on strike , ninety (90%) per cent of the pilots

went on strike, approximately six hundred (600)". These pilots' strike was so devastating . . . . Without any pilots

no plane can fly, your Honor, that is the stark reality of the situation, and without airplanes flying, there would

be no place for employment of cabin attendants. EaHcDS

xxx xxx xxx

ATTY. MENDOZA

Well, according to the Court, Your Honor, the Court principally invalidated this because, according to the Court

it was fraudulent. And it was fraudulent because PAL misrepresented that it was losing, but in fact it was not as

the Court found. So, in other words, if Your Honor please, as I have explained, there was no misrepresentation

because the members of FASAP could not have but known that there were less planes that were flying. And

they could not have but known that the number of cabin attendants cannot have exceed that which wererequired by the number of planes that were flying. So that was basically the reason for the redundancy and so it

can never be said that this was redundant. But as I have said, if Your Honor please, if the Court reconsiders its

finding that there was illegal dismissal there would really be no relevance to this quitclaim because, in any

event, the separation pay has been received by some, except for those who declined it.

So therefore, if Your Honor please, if I may conclude since my time is practically up. First, there can hardly be

any question, in fact, it is considered by FASAP and found by the National Labor Relations Commission, the

Labor Arbiter, and the Court of Appeals that circumstances existed that did not only warrant the reduction of

personnel including the members of FASAP and the cabin attendants but that these were compelled by

circumstances. If the cabin attendants were not retrenched you would have a situation where cabin attendants

would be there but were not needed but would earn compensation.


10/13

Second, if Your Honor please, as to the second issue, "cost-cutting measures" they were contemplated. But

when the pilots struck, an emergency situation arose and so there needed to be an immediate response to

that situation and the only one of the components of that response is this retrenchment.

Incidentally, if Your Honor please, a basic core of the rehabilitation of PAL was for the creditors to agree. PAL is

a different business than other businesses, Your Honor. An airline cannot stand still and the creditors' demands

are not met immediately, PAL would simply lose its airplanes. And so far as Point No. 3 is concerned, if Your

Honor please, PAL did the best it could under the circumstances. And as to number 3, as I said, if Your Honor

please, PAL acted in accordance with criteria in the Collective Bargaining Agreement which it followed

meticulously and religiously.

Whereas for the fourth, if Your Honor please, there was no fraud in the execution of the quitclaim but I must

emphasize once again that PAL's case does not really rest on the quitclaims. PAL's case rests on the responsethat we made on the first three (3) questions.

xxx xxx xxx

ATTY. MENDOZA

Yes. As I explained, Your Honor, when the 1997 economic crisis took place and PAL saw that it was going to

create a problem, PAL started studying measures already. But before it could implement any of these measures,

even conclude the study the pilots struck, when the pilots struck the situations changed entirely. It put PAL in

complete peril of total closure because no planes could fly, so that changed the picture, there was no more

time to engage in cost-cutting measures. What needed to be done, if Your Honor please, is to do what was

necessary to survive at that point? The first thing to do to survive was to fly as many planes as possible in order

to earn some revenue. But you could only fly as many planes as there were pilots, and that was the reason for

the initial flights. aTICAcxxx xxx xxx

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE NACHURA

During these conferences, did FASAP not suggest any other cost-cutting measures in order to determine the

immediate implementation of a retrenchment program?

ATTY. MENDOZA

Well, there was an endorsed initial conversation; there were suggestions if there is to be reduction of

personnel, rotations, and so on and so forth, Your Honor. So, by the time the pilots struck you have to retrench

quickly . . . .

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE NACHURA

Because related to this is a statement in our Decision that the retrenchment was illegal because it was not

actually the last resort that PAL could have; it was not the last resort that PAL could have attended, well used.

That means, there were other options that would probably have opened to PAL which would not be as

detrimental to FASAP as retrenchment.

ATTY. MENDOZA

If Your Honor please, may I put it this way? It was not just the last; it was the only resort, Your Honor, because

of these circumstances. There was no other option, but to operate flghts and spend only as necessary. If you

have more cabin attendants than we required for those planes which were flying you are spending needlessly

actually, Your Honor, and that is certainly not conducive to bring about a recovery of Philippine Airlines.

xxx xxx xxx

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE DE CASTRO

You mentioned that . . . before that, that there is a need for rehabilitation because the PAL was in dire financial

condition at that time, and it was . . .

ATTY. MENDOZAYour Honor please, the rehabilitation came after the pilots' strike. Actually, before the pilots' strike the effort of

PAL is to find the way to address the Asian economic crisis. It's just like, if Your Honor please, a factory which is

to be more efficient in order to be able to compete, let us say, with the imported goods, so you downsize or you

may try to be more efficient but the situation PAL confronted after the pilots' strike was entirely different. It

was a case of survival already, Your Honor, because it meant closure and PAL was able to operate some planes

only because of what they called management pilots. There were certain pilots who were occupying supervisory

positions but who were employed still by PAL. They were the ones who actually flew the plane because the

members of the pilots' union simply stopped working.22(Emphasis supplied)

n the other hand, FASAP argued and reiterated its original contentions, inter alia, that during negotiations for the

mplementation of cost-cutting measures, it was assured by PAL that since there were negotiations with possible investors wh


11/13

ere being eyed as business partners, retrenchment was no longer necessary;23that although it admitted PAL's financial

fficulties, it did not concede that these losses justified the urgency, necessity and extent of the questioned retrenchment

heme;24that the ICCD Masterank Listing was an afterthought, the same having been presented only on March 13, 2000, an

as never shown to the retrenched employees during the period of retrenchment; 25that the criteria for retrenchment did n

onform to the CBA;26and that no cost-cutting measures were implemented. a

AL has all this time tried to convince the Court that its decision to downsize its flight fleet was the principal reason why it

ndertook a corresponding downsizing of cabin crew personnel. This time, however, it significantly changed stance and blame

e June 5, 1998 pilots' strike as the real culprit which drove it to undertake the massive retrenchment under scrutiny. This tim

AL characterizes the retrenchment scheme and the downsizing of aircraft as mere necessary reactions to or unfortunate

onsequences of the pilots' strike, which it claims likewise necessitated a disregard of all previous negotiations for themplementation of cost-cutting measures that could have rendered the retrenchment scheme unnecessary, and which cost-

utting measures it no longer found necessary to undertake.

We find this argument untenable. The strike was a temporary occurrence that did not necessitate the immediate and sweepin

trenchment of 1,400 cabin or flight attendants. By PAL's own account, some of the striking pilots went back to work in July 1

r less than one month after the strike began. Moreover, PAL admitted that it remedied the situation by employing "managem

lots".28It could have hired new pilots as well. Certainly, it could have implemented the cost-cutting measures being discus

s a temporary measure to obviate the adverse effects of the pilots' strike. There was no reason to drastically implement

permanentretrenchment scheme in response to a temporarystrike, which could have ended at any time, or remedied prom

management acted with alacrity. Juxtaposed with its failure to implement the required cost-cutting measures, the retrench

heme was a knee-jerk solution to a temporary problem that beset PAL at the time.

esides, we cannot simply allow PAL to conveniently blame the striking pilots for causing the massive retrenchment of cabin

ersonnel. Using them as scapegoats to validate a comprehensive retrenchment scheme of cabin personnel without observin

quirements set by law is both unfair and underhanded. PAL must still prove that it implemented cost-cutting measures to

bviate retrenchment, which under the law should be the last resort. By PAL's own admission, however, the cabin personnel

trenchment scheme was one of the first remedies it resorted to, even before it could complete the proposed downsizing of

rcraft fleet. It admittedly dropped all plans of implementing cost-cutting measures as soon as the pilots went on strike, and

way it sent notices of termination to its cabin personnel. 29This knee-jerk reaction would explain why it had to eventually re

nd rehire some of the cabin attendants almost immediately after it retrenched them, because the retrenchment simply was

ommensurate with the downsizing of aircraft fleet size. This outcome only proves to show that the decision to retrench came

ven before a final determination of how many aircraft were needed to be retained or discarded, or even before the

ehabilitation plan could be approved.

gain, it must be emphasized that in order for a retrenchment scheme to be valid, all of the following elements under Article

f the Labor Code must concur or be present, to wit:

(1)That retrenchment is reasonably necessary and likely to prevent business losses which, if already incurred,

are not merely de minimis, but substantial, serious, actual and real, or if only expected, are reasonably

imminent as perceived objectively and in good faith by the employer; AaSTIH

(2)That the employer served written notice both to the employees and to the Department of Labor and

Employment at least one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment;

(3)That the employer pays the retrenched employees separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least

one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher;

(4)That the employer exercises its prerogative to retrench employees in good faith for the advancement of itsinterest and not to defeat or circumvent the employees' right to security of tenure; and,

(5)That the employer uses fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining who would be dismissed and who would

be retained among the employees, such as status, efficiency, seniority, physical fitness, age, and financial

hardship for certain workers.

the absence of one element, the retrenchment scheme becomes an irregular exercise of management prerogative. The

mployer's obligation to exhaust all other means to avoid further losses without retrenching its employees is a component of

rst element as enumerated above. To impart operational meaning to the constitutional policy of providing full protection to

bor, the employer's prerogative to bring down labor costs by retrenching must be exercised essentially as a measure of last

esort, after less drastic means have been tried and found wanting.
http://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52447?search=%28FASAP+vs.+PAL%29+AND+gr%3A+%28178083%2A%29+AND+date%3A%5B2009-10-02+2009-10-02%5D#footnotes


12/13

the instant case, PAL admitted that since the pilots' strike allegedly created a situation of extreme urgency, it no longer

mplemented cost-cutting measures and proceeded directly to retrench. This being so, it clearly did not abide by all the

quirements under Article 283 of the Labor Code. At the time it was implemented, the retrenchment scheme under scrutiny

ot triggered directly by any financial difficulty PAL was experiencing at the time, nor borne of an actual implementation of its

roposed downsizing of aircraft. It was brought about by and resorted to as an immediate reaction to a pilots' strike wh

strict point of law and as herein earlier discussed, may not be considered as a valid reason to retrench, nor may it be used t

xcuse PAL for its non-observance of the requirements of the law on retrenchment under the Labor Code.

n the basis of the foregoing disquisition, we find no further need to discuss the other arguments advanced by the parties in

eadings and during the oral arguments.

herefore, this Court finds no reason to disturb its finding that the retrenchment of the flight attendants was illegally executeeld in the Decision sought to be reconsidered, PAL failed to observe the procedure and requirements for a valid retrenchmen

ssuming that PAL was indeed suffering financial losses, the requisite proof therefor was not presented before the NLRC whic

as the proper forum. More importantly, the manner of the retrenchment was not in accordance with the procedure require

w. Hence, the retrenchment of the flight attendants amounted to illegal dismissal. Consequently, the flight attendants affec

e entitled to the reliefs provided by law, which include backwages and reinstatement or separation pay, as the case may be.

AL begs the compassion of this Court and alleges that the monetary award it stands to pay to the affected flight attendants t

whopping P2.3 billion, the payment of which will certainly paralyze its operations and even lead to its untimely demise.

owever, a careful review of the records of the case, as well as the respective allegations of the parties, shows that several of

ew members do not need to be paid full backwages or separation pay. A substantial fraction of the 1,400 flight attendants h

ready been either recalled, reinstated or relieved from the service. Still, some of them have reached the age of compulsory

etirement or even died. Likewise, a significant portion of these retrenched flight attendants have already received separationnd signed quitclaim. All of these factors, to the mind of the Court, will greatly reduce the quoted amount of the money judgm

at PAL will have to pay.

fter finality of this case, the records will have to be remanded to the Labor Arbiter who decided the case at the first instance

here, the actual amount of PAL's liability to each and every flight attendant will be computed. Both parties will have a chanc

ubmit further proof and argument in support of their respective proposed computations. For the guidance of the Labor Arbit

ell as the parties, this Court lays down the following yardsticks in the computation of the final amount of liability, in order to

void any protracted and heated debates which can again lead to further delays in the final resolution of this case and the ful

alization by the retrenched flight attendants of the amounts necessary to compensate and indemnify them for the wrongfu

trenchment.

Flight attendants who have been re-employed without loss of seniority rights shall be paid backwages but only up to the tim

eir actual reinstatement.

Flight attendants who have been re-employed as new hires shall be restored their seniority and other preferential rights.

owever, their backwages shall be computed only up to the date of actual re-hiring.

Flight attendants who have reached their compulsory age of retirement shall receive backwages up to the date of their

tirement only. The same is true as regards the heirs of those who have passed away.

Flight attendants who have not been re-employed by PAL, including those who executed quitclaims and received separation

r financial assistance, shall be reinstated without loss of seniority rights and paid full backwages. However, the amounts they

ready received should be deducted from whatever amounts are finally adjudged to them individually.

our members of the Division voted to include a fifth (5th) criterion, namely that flight attendants who had obtained substant

quivalent or even more lucrative employment elsewhere in 1998 or thereafter are deemed to have severed their employme

ith PAL. They shall be entitled to full backwages from the date of their retrenchment only up to the date they found employsewhere.

n a final note, this Court finds that the award of attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award should be

mpered, considering the number of flight attendants who stand to receive monetary awards and the totality of all amounts

o them. To be sure, attorney's fees in labor cases are awarded specifically in actions for recovery of wages or where an empl

as forced to litigate and thus incurred expenses to protect his rights and interests. In such cases, a maximum of 10% of the t

onetary award is justifiable under Article 111 of the Labor Code, Section 8, Rule VIII, Book III of its Implementing Rules and

aragraph 7, Article 2208 of the Civil Code.32The award of attorney's fees is proper where there is a showing that the lawful

ages were not paid accordingly.


13/13

. . . [T]here are two commonly accepted concepts of attorney's fees, the so-called ordinary and extraordinary. In

its ordinary concept, an attorney's fee is the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for the legal

services he has rendered to the latter. The basis of this compensation is the fact of his employment by and his

agreement with the client. In its extraordinary concept, attorney's fees are deemed indemnity for damages

ordered by the court to be paid by the losing party in a litigation. The instances where these may be awarded

are those enumerated in Article 2208 of the Civil Code, specifically par. 7 thereof which pertains to actions for

recovery of wages, and is payable not to the lawyer but to the client, unless they have agreed that the award

shall pertain to the lawyer as additional compensation or as part thereof. The extraordinary concept of

attorney's fees is the one contemplated in Article 111 of the Labor Code, which provides: CSTDEH

Art. 111.Attorney's fees. (a) In cases of unlawful withholding of wages, the culpable party may be

assessed attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent of the amount of wages recovered . . .The afore-quoted Article 111 is an exception to the declared policy of strict construction in the awarding of

attorney's fees. Although an express finding of facts and law is still necessary to prove the merit of the award,

there need not be any showing that the employer acted maliciously or in bad faith when it withheld the

wages. There need only be a showing that the lawful wages were not paid accordingly, as in this case.

In carrying out and interpreting the Labor Code's provisions and its implementing regulations, the employee's

welfare should be the primordial and paramount consideration. This kind of interpretation gives meaning and

substance to the liberal and compassionate spirit of the law as provided in Article 4 of the Labor Code which

states that "[a]ll doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of [the Labor] Code including

its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor", and Article 1702 of the Civil Code

which provides that "[i]n case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of

the safety and decent living for the laborer." (Emphasis supplied)

the case ofConcept Placement Resources, Inc. v. Funk,35this Court reduced the amount of attorney's fees which it ruled to

iquitous and unconscionable after finding that the lawyer did not encounter difficulty in representing his client. It was held:

We observe, however, that respondent did not encounter difficulty in representing petitioner. The complaint

against it was dismissed with prejudice. All that respondent did was to prepare the answer with counterclaim

and possibly petitioner's position paper. Considering respondent's limited legal services and the case involved is

not complicated, the award of P50,000.00 as attorney's fees is a bit excessive. In First Metro Investment

Corporation vs. Este del Sol Mountain Reserve, Inc., we ruled that courts are empowered to reduce the amount

of attorney's fees if the same is iniquitous or unconscionable. Under the circumstances obtaining in this case,

we consider the amount of P20,000.00 reasonable.

the case at bar, we find that the flight attendants were represented by respondent union which, in turn, engaged the servic

f its own counsel. The flight attendants had a common cause of action. While the work performed by respondent's counsel w

y no means simple, seeing as it spanned the whole litigation from the Labor Arbiter stage all the way to this Court, neverthe

e issues involved in this case are simple, and the legal strategies, theories and arguments advanced were common for all the

fected crew members. Hence, it may not be reasonable to award said counsel an amount equivalent to 10% of all monetary

wards to be received by each individual flight attendant. Based on the length of time that this case has been litigated, howev

e find that the amount of P2,000,000.00 is reasonable as attorney's fees. This amount should include all expenses of litigatio

at were incurred by respondent union.

WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED with FINALITY. The assailed Decision dated J

2, 2008 isAFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the award of attorney's fees and expenses of litigation is reduced to

2,000,000.00. The case is herebyREMANDED to the Labor Arbiter solely for the purpose of computing the exact amount of tward pursuant to the guidelines herein stated. caSEAH

o further pleadings will be entertained.

O ORDERED.

Documents

Fasap v. Pal - October 2, 2009