SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 173921, February 24, 2016
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., Petitioner, v. ISAGANI DAWAL, LORNA CONCEPCION, AND BONIFACIO SINOBAGO, Respondents.
G.R. No. 173952
ISAGANI DAWAL, LORNA CONCEPCION, AND BONIFACIO SINOBAGO, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., AVELINO L. ZAPANTA, AND CESAR B. LAMBERTE, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
The employer has the burden of proving that the dismissal of its employees is with a valid and authorized cause. The employer's failure to discharge this burden makes the dismissal illegal.
This resolves consolidated Petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The Petition1 docketed as G.R. No. 173921 was filed by Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL), while the Petition2 docketed as G.R. No. 173952 was filed by Isagani Dawal, Lorna Concepcion, and Bonifacio Sinobago (Dawal, et al.). Both Petitions are offshoots of the Court of Appeals Sixth Division's Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 73030.3
In its July 21, 2004 Decision,4 the Court of Appeals reinstated with modifications the Labor Arbiter's Decision dated September 7, 2001, and annulled and set aside the February 28, 2002 Decision5 and June 20, 2002 Resolution6 of the National Labor Relations Commission.7
The Court of Appeals found that Dawal, et al. were illegally dismissed.8 It ordered PAL to reinstate Dawal, et al.9 to the equivalent of their former positions10 with full backwages.11 If there were no equivalent positions for Dawal, et al. to fill in, PAL was ordered to pay their full backwages12 on top of the separation pay already given.13
In addition, the Court of Appeals directed PAL to pay attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award.14
However, unlike the Labor Arbiter, the Court of Appeals found that PAL was not guilty of unfair labor practice and reduced the award for moral and exemplary damages.15 The dispositive portion of the Decision reads as follows:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed decision and resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC NCR CN 30-12-14858-00 NLRC NCR CN 30-02-00842-01 CA No. 030195-01 are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The 07 September 2001 decision of Labor Arbiter Francisco A. Robles is hereby ordered REINSTATED, but insofar as the petitioners Isagani Dawal, Lorna Concepcion and Bonifacio Sinobago are considered, WITH MODIFICATIONS, to read:In its July 28, 2006 Resolution,17 the Court of Appeals Special Former Sixth Division denied PAL's Motion for Reconsideration and Dawal, et al.'s Motion for Partial Reconsideration.18
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary"WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of herein complainants and against the respondents:SO ORDERED.16ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(1) Ordering the respondents to reinstate immediately the herein complaints [sic] Isagani Dawal, Lorna Concepcion and Bonifacio Sinobago to positions equivalent to their former positions without loss of seniority rights and other benefits upon receipt of this Decision; (2) Ordering the respondents to pay herein complaints [sic] Isagani Dawal, Lorna Concepcion and Bonifacio Sinobago their full backwages, based on their last salary received, other privileges and benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the date of their dismissal on September 1, 2000 until their reinstatement; based on the last salary received by the said employees. As of July 31, 2001, complainants' backwages are in the amounts stated and specified below: a. ISAGANI DAWAL - P17,170.00 x 12 mos. from Sept. 1, 2000 up to July 31, 2001 = P206,040.00 b. LORNA CONCEPCION - P22,540.00 x 12 mos. from Sept. 1, 2000 up to July 31, 2001 = P270,480.00 c. BONIFACIO SINOBAGO - P21,675.00 x 12 mos. from Sept. 1, 2000 up to July 31, 2001-P260,100.00 It should be stated and understood that the backwages of the complainants shall be subject to further computation up to the reinstatement of the said employees. (3) In the event that there are no equivalent positions to which the aforenamed complainants may be reinstated, the respondents are ordered to pay, in addition to the separation pay already paid to complainants Isagani Dawal, Lorna Concepcion and Bonifacio Sinobago, their full backwages, based on their last salary received, other privileges and benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from their dismissal on 01 September 2000 until their supposed actual reinstatement; (4) Ordering the respondents to pay the said complainants P50,000.00 each as moral damages and P10,000.00 each as exemplary damages; and (5) Ordering the respondents to pay the said complainants attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of their respective total monetary award.
All other claims are hereby dismissed."
Art. 298. Closure of Establishment and Reduction of Personnel. The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on the worker and the Ministry of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. In case of termination due to the installation of labor-saving devices or redundancy, the worker affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least his one (1) month pay or to at least one (1) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered one (1) whole year. (Emphasis in the original)The company can resort to any of these authorized causes to "protect and preserve [its] viability and ensure [its] survival."147 Under Article 298, for there to be valid termination of work based on an authorized cause, several procedural and substantive requirements must be complied with.
Redundancy exists where the services of an employee are in excess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual requirements of the enterprise. A position is redundant where it is superfluous, and superfluity of a position or positions may be the outcome of a number of factors, such as overhiring of workers, decreased volume of business, or dropping of a particular product line or service activity previously manufactured or undertaken by the enterprise.Redundancy requires good faith in abolishing the redundant position.175 To establish good faith, the company must provide substantial proof that it is overmanned.176 This is absent here.
Retrenchment, on the other hand, is used interchangeably with the term "lay-off." It is ... an act of the employer of dismissing employees because of losses in the operation of a business, lack of work, and considerable reduction on the volume of his business[.]174 (Citations omitted)
[T]he dismissal of the petitioners who were later on offered reemployment ... as new employees of PAL appears to be merely a clever ruse ... to deprive [Dawal, et al.], as well as the other employees similarly situated, of the privileges and benefits to which they are already entitled to by reason of the length of services they have rendered to PAL[.]182 (Emphasis supplied)PAL's acts effectively defeated its employees' security of tenure and seniority rights. The presence of bad faith cancels out any claim of redundancy.183
Firstly, the losses expected should be substantial and not merely de minimis in extent. If the loss purportedly sought to be forestalled by retrenchment is clearly shown to be insubstantial and inconsequential in character, the bonafide nature of the retrenchment would appear to be seriously in question. Secondly, the substantial loss apprehended must be reasonably imminent, as such imminence can be perceived objectively and in good faith by the employer. There should, in other words, be a certain degree of urgency for the retrenchment, which is after all a drastic recourse with serious consequences for the livelihood of the employees retired or otherwise laid-off. Because of the consequential nature of retrenchment, it must, thirdly, be reasonably necessary and likely to effectively prevent the expected losses. The employer should have taken other measures prior or parallel to retrenchment to forestall losses, i.e., cut other costs other than labor costs. An employer who, for instance, lays off substantial numbers of workers while continuing to dispense fat executive bonuses and perquisites or so-called "golden parachutes," [severance packages] can scarcely claim to be retrenching in good faith to avoid losses. To impart operational meaning to the constitutional policy of providing "full protection" to labor, the employer's prerogative to bring down labor costs by retrenching must be exercised essentially as a measure of last resort, after less drastic means — e.g., reduction of both management and rank-and-file bonuses and salaries, going on reduced time, improving manufacturing efficiencies, trimming of marketing and advertising costs, etc. — have been tried and found wanting.The employer has the burden of showing by clear and satisfactory evidence that there are existing or imminent substantial losses, and that "legitimate business reasons justif[y] . . . retrenchment."187 Mere showing of incurred or expected losses does not automatically justify retrenchment.188 The business losses must be "substantial, serious, actual[,] and real,"189 not merely de minimis.
Lastly, but certainly not the least important, alleged losses if already realized, and the expected imminent losses sought to be forestalled, must be proved by sufficient and convincing evidence. The reason for requiring this quantum of proof is readily apparent: any less exacting standard of proof would render too easy the abuse of this ground for termination of services of employees.186 (Citation omitted)
SECTION 2. CONSTRUCTION. - These Rules shall be liberally construed to carry out the objectives of the Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines and other relevant legislations, and to assist the parties in obtaining just, expeditious and inexpensive resolution and settlement of labor disputes.Article 221 of the Labor Code also states:
Art. 221. Technical Rules not binding and prior resort to amicable settlement. In any proceeding before the Commission or any of the Labor Arbiters, the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity shall not be controlling, and it is the spirit and intention of this Code that the Commission and its members and the Labor Arbiters shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively and without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process[.]At this juncture, it is important to put into context the provisions cited above. Both Rule I, Section 2 of the NLRC Rules and Article 221 of the Labor Code cannot be read in isolation; rather, they should be understood in harmony with Article 4 of the Labor Code.
In a protracted legal battle, capital can always protect its interests with its vast and superior resources as well as skilled legal services. Labor does not have such resources under its command; for which reason, the Constitution compels the State — including the courts as organs of the State — to accord labor the needed protection and assurance of social justice. From the very beginning, because of these essential differences in resources — and in power and influence — the battle between capital and labor is always unequal because labor is always the weaker of the two protagonists.212ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryEmployees almost always have no possession of the company's financial statements. For reasons of equity, it is not the management or employer, i.e., PAL, but the workers themselves, i.e., Dawal, et al., who can invoke the liberal interpretation rule here.
Even assuming that the corporation has actually incurred losses by reason of the Asian economic crisis, the retrenchment is not perfectly justified as there was no showing that the retrenchment was the last recourse resorted to by petitioners. Although petitioners allege in their petition before this Court that they had undertaken cost-cutting measures before they resorted to retrenchment, their contention does not inspire belief for the evidence shows that the petition for certiorari filed by petitioners with the Court of Appeals is bereft of any allegation of prior resort to cost-cutting measures other than retrenchment.233 (Citation omitted)Here, there is no showing that PAL "resorted to less drastic and less permanent cost-cutting measures"234 prior to the so-called retrenchment. In 1998, PAL already retrenched about 5,000 employees.235 Two years later, it again turned to cutting off its employees' livelihood.
[T]he reason why quitclaims [are] commonly frowned upon as contrary to public policy, and why they are held to be ineffective to bar claims for the full measure of the workers' legal rights, is the fact that the employer and the employee obviously do not stand on the same footing. The employer drove the employee to the wall. The latter must have to get hold of money. Because, out of a job, he had to face the harsh necessities of life. He thus found himself in no position to resist money proffered. His, then, is a case of adherence, not of choice. One thing sure, however, is that petitioners did not relent on their claim. They pressed it. They are deemed not have waived any of their rights.279ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryDawal, et al.'s non-waiver of rights is further supported by the respective disclaimers they wrote stating that they signed the release and quitclaims without prejudice "to [the] money claims filed[,]"280 to "the favorabl[e] result of the PAL-PALEA dispute[,]"281 or to the "rate of pay, wage distortion claim cases with PAL[.]"282
Art. 259. Unfair Labor Practices of Employers. - It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practices:In Samahang Manggagawa sa Sulpicio Lines, Inc.-NAFLU v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc.,303 we have held that the union has the burden to prove, by substantial evidence, its allegation of unfair labor practice.304 Neither PALEA nor Dawal, et al. have discharged this burden.
(a) To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization;
(g) To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by this Code;
(i) To violate a collective bargaining agreement. (Emphasis in the original, citation omitted)
[V]iolations of a Collective Bargaining Agreement, except those which are gross in character, shall no longer be treated as unfair labor practice and shall be resolved as grievances under the Collective Bargaining Agreement. For purposes of this article, gross violations of Collective Bargaining Agreement shall mean flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with the economic provisions of such agreement. (Emphasis supplied)In Silva v. National Labor Relations Commission,322 we held that for there to be unfair labor practice, the violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement must be gross and must be related to the Agreement's economic provisions.323 Here, Dawal, et al. charge PAL of violating the provisions on Job Security in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which are non-economic in nature.324 Thus, PAL's acts do not constitute unfair labor practice under Article 259(i) of the Labor Code.
Art. 294. Security of Tenure. In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)Where reinstatement is not possible, an employee is entitled to separation pay in addition to one's monetary claims.327 Damages may also be awarded if the dismissal was done in bad faith.328
Under the facts and evidence on record, it was sufficiently established that [Dawal, et al.] were illegally dismissed thereby entitling them to their money claims, except that their claims of holiday pay and premium pay for holidays should be denied for lack of evidence. Considering further that such dismissal was effected in total disregard of their length of service as well as in a wanton and oppressive manner, [Dawal, et al.] are entitled to the payment of moral and exemplary damages under Article 1701,332 in conjunction with [A]rticles 21333 and 2219 (10)334 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, and Article 2232335 of the same Code.336ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryThe awards for moral and exemplary damages are "sufficient to ease [Dawal, et al.'s] moral suffering by reason of their illegal dismissal."337
(1) | Ordering Philippine Airlines, Inc. to immediately reinstate Isagani Dawal, Lorna Concepcion, and Bonifacio Sinobago to positions equivalent to their former positions without loss of seniority rights and other benefits upon receipt of this Decision. | ||
(2) | Ordering Philippine Airlines, Inc. to pay Isagani Dawal, Lorna Concepcion, and Bonifacio Sinobago their full backwages based on their last salary received, other privileges, allowances, and benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the date of their dismissal on September 1, 2000 until their reinstatement, based on the last salary they had received. As of July 31, 2001, Isagani Dawal's, Lorna Concepcion's, and Bonifacio Sinobago's backwages are in the amounts stated and specified below: | ||
(a) | Isagani Dawal | ||
- P17,170.00 x 12 months from September 1, 2000 to July 31, 2000 = P206,040.00 | |||
(b) | Lorna Concepcion | ||
- P22,540.00 x 12 months from September 1, 2000 to July 31, 2000 = P270,480.00 | |||
(c) | Bonifacio Sinobago | ||
- P21,675.00 x 12 months from September 1, 2000 to July 31, 2000 = P260,100.00 | |||
It should be stated and understood that the backwages of Isagani Dawal, Lorna Concepcion, and Bonifacio Sinobago shall be subject to further computation up to their reinstatement. It should be further stated and understood that the separation pay actually they had received should be deducted from their respective monetary awards. | |||
(3) | Ordering Philippine Airlines, Inc., in the event that there are no equivalent positions to which Isagani Dawal, Lorna Concepcion, and Bonifacio Sinobago may be reinstated (or where reinstatement is not possible), to pay, in addition to the separation pay already given them, their full backwages based on their last salary received, other privileges, allowances, and benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from their dismissal on September 1, 2000 until their supposed actual reinstatement. | ||
(4) | Ordering Philippine Airlines, Inc. to pay Isagani Dawal P50,000.00 as nominal damages for failure to provide advanced (30-day) notice prior to his termination. | ||
(5) | Ordering Philippine Airlines, Inc. to pay Isagani Dawal, Lorna Concepcion, and Bonifacio Sinobago P50,000.00 each as moral damages and P10,000.00 each as exemplary damages. | ||
(6) | Ordering Philippine Airlines, Inc. to pay Isagani Dawal, Lorna Concepcion, and Bonifacio Sinobago attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of their respective total monetary award. | ||
(7) | Ordering Philippine Airlines, Inc. to pay legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum of Isagani Dawal's, Lorna Conception's, and Bonifacio Sinobago's total monetary awards computed from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid. |
Endnotes:
1Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), pp. 60-99.
2Rollo (G.R. No. 173952), pp. 10-76.
3Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), p. 62; rollo (G.R. No. 173952), p. 14.
4Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), pp. 104-122. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Perlita J. Tria Tirona and concurred in by Associate Justices Ruben T. Reyes (Chair) and Jose C. Reyes Jr. of the Sixth Division.
5Rollo (G.R. No. 173952), pp. 175-190. The Decision was penned by Commissioner Ireneo B. Bernardo and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier and Commissioner Tito F. Genilo of the Third Division.
6 Id. at 191-192. The Resolution was penned by Commissioner Ireneo B. Bernardo and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier and Commissioner Tito F. Genilo of the Third Division.
7Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), pp. 120-121, Court of Appeals Decision. The Labor Arbiter was Francisco A. Robles.
8 Id. at 117.
9Rollo (G.R. No. 173952), p. 267, PALEA and Dawal, et al.'s Amended Complaint and Position Paper. Dawal started working for PAL on September 1, 1972, Concepcion on September 17, 1979, and Sinobago on July 1, 1983.
10Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), p. 120, Court of Appeals Decision.
11 Id. at 119.
12 Id.
13 Id. at 121.
14 Id.
15 Id. at 1033 and 1035, Dawal, et al.'s Memorandum.
16 Id. at 120-122, Court of Appeals Decision.
17 Id. at 125-129. The Resolution was penned by Presiding Justice Ruben T. Reyes and concurred in by Associate Justices Rodrigo V. Cosico and Jose C. Reyes, Jr. of the Special Former Sixth Division.
18 Id. at 129.
19Rollo (G.R. No. 173952), p. 585, Supreme Court Resolution dated September 25, 2006.
20Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), pp. 988-1029.
21 Id. at 1030-1126.
22 Id. at 106, Court of Appeals Decision.
23 Id.
24 Id. at 415, PALEA and Dawal, et al.'s Reply.cralawred
25See Philippine Airlines Employees' Association v. Hon Ferrer-Calleja, 245 Phil. 382, 384 (1988) [Per J. Grino-Aquino, First Division]. PALEA is the exclusive collective bargaining unit of PAL's ground rank-and-file employees.
26Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), p. 992, PAL's Memorandum.cralawred
27 Id.
28Rollo (G.R. No. 173952), p. 197, Labor Arbiter's Decision.
29Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), p. 992, PAL's Memorandum. PAL claims that it cost at least US$4 billion, based on a peso-dollar exchange rate of P26.00 to US$1.00.
30 Id. at 993.
31 Id. Airline Pilots Association of the Philippines (ALPAP) is the exclusive collective bargaining unit of PAL pilots.
32 Id. at 992-994. According to PAL, ALPAP and PALEA staged "strikes" (Id. at 993) more than once, thus aggravating its "heavy losses" (Id.). However, nowhere in the record has PAL shown proof or mentioned any detail of the alleged "strikes" anytime from June 1997 (Asian Financial Crisis) to June 19, 1998 (when PAL filed for corporate rehabilitation). In any case, this court takes judicial notice of ALPAP's strike on June 5, 1998 (See Airline Pilots Association of the Philippines v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., 665 Phil. 679, 682 (2011) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division]). This court also takes judicial notice that PALEA conducted a four-day strike on July 22, 1998, which, however, came only after PAL already filed for corporate rehabilitation (See Rivera v. Hon. Espiritu, 425 Phil. 169, 175 (2002) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division]).
33Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), p. 1048, Dawal, et al.'s Memorandum.
34 Id. at 994, PAL's Memorandum. On June 15, 1998, PAL retrenched 5,000 of its employees, including 1,400 of its cabin crew, to take effect on July 15, 1998 (See Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., et al., 617 Phil. 687, 691-692 (2009) [Per J. Ynares- Santiago, Special Third Division]).
35Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), p. 108, Court of Appeals Decision.
36 Id. at 287, PAL President Avelino Zapanta's letter dated March 24, 2000, addressed to the PALEA Executive Board.
37 Id. at 995, PAL's Memorandum.
38 Id.
39Rollo (G.R. No. 173952), p. 198, Labor Arbiter's Decision.cralawred
40Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), pp. 224-250.
41 Id. at 237, PAL's Amended and Restated Rehabilitation Plan, and 994, PAL's Memorandum.
42 Id.
43 Id. at 451, Minutes of the PAL-PALEA Meeting dated June 15, 1999.
44 Id. at 451-452.
45 Id. at 452.
46 Id. at 183, PALEA Commission on Election's Notice of Proclamation of Union Officers. The general elections of the Union were held on February 17, 21- 22, and 23-24,2000.
47Rollo (G.R. No. 173952), p. 270, PALEA and Dawal, et al.'s Amended Complaint and Position Paper.
48Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), p. 183, PALEA Commission on Election's Notice of Proclamation of Union Officers.
49 Id. at 186, PAL President Avelino Zapanta's letter dated March 27, 2000, addressed to former PALEA Secretary Jose T. Peñas III.
50 Id.
51 Id. at 186, PAL President Avelino Zapanta's letter dated March 27, 2000, addressed to former PALEA Secretary Jose T. Peñas III; rollo (G.R. No. 173952), p. 205, Labor Arbiter's Decision.
52Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), p. 994, PAL's Memorandum.
53 Id. at 281-282, SEC Order in SEC Case No. 06-98-6004, and 996, PAL's Memorandum.
54 Id. at 1104, Dawal, et al.'s Memorandum.
55 Id. at 283, PAL-PALEA Memorandum of Agreement.
56 Id., Emphasis supplied.
57Rollo (GR. No. 173952), p. 206, Labor Arbiter's Decision.
58Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), p. 187, PALEA's letter dated March 30, 2000, addressed to PAL President Avelino Zapanta.
59 Id.
60 Id. at 996, PAL's Memorandum.
61 Id. at 1051-1052, Dawal, et al.'s Memorandum.
62 Id. at 996-997, PAL's Memorandum.
63 Id. at 1041, Dawal, et al.'s Memorandum.
64 Id.
65 Id. at 307, PAL President Avelino Zapanta's letter dated July 20, 2000, addressed to PALEA.
66 Id. at 109.
67 Id. at 348-350.
68 Id. at 1012, PAL's Memorandum.
69 Id. at 109, Court of Appeals Decision; 341, PAL Human Resources Department's letter to Dawal; and 348-350, Release, Waiver and Quitclaim.
70 Id. at 349-350, Release, Waiver and Quitclaim.
71 Id. at 109, Court of Appeals Decision; and 1052, Dawal, et al.'s Memorandum.
72Rollo (G.R. No. 173952), p. 195, Labor Arbiter's Decision.
73Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), p. 1049, Dawal, et al.'s Memorandum.
74 Id. at 307, PAL President Avelino Zapanta's letter dated July 20, 2000, addressed to PALEA.
75 Id. at 1046, Dawal, et al.'s Memorandum.
76Rollo (G.R. No. 173952), p. 367, PAL's Consolidated Rejoinder.
77Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), pp. 200-203, PALEA Letter dated September 7, 2000.
78 Id. at 200. PAL received the letter on September 13, 2000.
79 Id. at 200-203.
80 Id. at 1110, Dawal, et al.'s Memorandum.
81Rollo (G.R. No. 173952), pp. 214-218.
82 Id. at 217.
83Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), pp. 132-181, PALEA and Dawal, et al.'s Amended Complaint and Position Paper. The case was docketed as NLRC-NCR Case No. 30-02-00842-01.
84 Id. at 204, PAL's Position Paper; 351, PAL's Consolidated Reply; and 444, PAL's Consolidated Rejoinder. The cases docketed as NLRC-NCR Case No. 30-02-00842-01 and NLRC-NCR (South) No. 30-12-04058-00 were consolidated.
85Rollo (G.r. No. 173952, pp. 193-213.
86 Id. at 200-204.
87Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), p. 1054, Dawal, et al.'s Memorandum.
88Rollo (G.R. No. 173952), pp. 212-213, Labor Arbiter's Decision.
89 Id. at 189, National Labor Relations Commission Decision.
90 Id. at 182-185.
91 Id. at 186.
92Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), p. 104, Court of Appeals Decision.
93 Id. at 120.
94 Id. at 117.
95 Id. at 116.
96 Id. at 120.
97 Id. at 119.
98 Id. at 125, Court of Appeals Resolution.
99 Id.
100 Id. at 129.
101 Id. at 60, Petition for Review.
102 Id. at 75-94.
103Rollo (G.R. No. 173952), p. 10, Petition.
104 Id. at 44.
105 Id. at 595-612, PAL's Comment.
106 Id. at 664, Supreme Court Resolution dated August 11, 2008.
107Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), pp. 887-963.
108 Id. at 942.
109Rollo (G.R. No. 173952), p. 9, Supreme Court Resolution dated September 11, 2006.
110Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), pp. 988-1029.
111 Id. at 1030-1126.
112 Id. at 989, PAL's Memorandum.
113 Id. at 993.
114 A Decree Instituting a Labor Code Thereby Revising and Consolidating Labor and Social Laws to Afford Protection to Labor, Promote Employment and Human Resources Development and Insure Industrial Peace Based on Social Justice (1974).
115Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), p. 1011, PAL's Memorandum.
116 Id.
117 Id. at 69, Petition for Review; and 286, PAL Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Jaime J. Bautista's letter dated February 18, 1999 addressed to then PALEA President Alexander Barrientos.
118 Id. at 1011, PAL's Memorandum.
119 Id. at 1011-1012.
120 Id. at 1079, Dawal, et al.'s Memorandum.
121 Id. at 1085.
122 Id.
123 Id. at 1079.
124 Id. at 1105-1106.
125 Id. at 1106.
126 Id.
127 Id. at 1098.
128 Id. at 1104-1106, Dawal, et al.'s Memorandum.
129 Id. at 1022-1023, PAL's Memorandum.
130 Id. at 1023.
131 Id. at 1020.
132 Id. at 1125, Dawal et al.'s Memorandum. These are the original amounts of moral and exemplary damages awarded by the Labor Arbiter, which Dawal, et al. seek to be reinstated.
133 Id. at 1108-1109. Article III, Section 1 of the PAL-PALEA Collective Bargaining Agreement provides: Section 1. Security of tenure. No employee shall be subjected to disciplinary action or terminated from employment without just or authorized cause[.]
134 Id. at 1104-1106.
135 Id. at 1109-1110. Article III, Section 7 of the PAL-PALEA Collective Bargaining Agreement provides:
Section 7. Lay-Off. Before the Company exercises its right to ... retrench employees, the Company and [PALEA] shall meet not later than sixty (60) days before the intended date of implementation of such retrenchment/lay-off, to discuss the details of the implementation of such action applying the principle of "last in, first out" in so far as practicable taking into consideration the department or area affected.
136 Id. at 1110.
137Montoya v. Transmed Manila Corporation/Mr. Edilberto Ellena, et al., 613 Phil. 696, 707 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
138Lambert Pawnbrokers and Jewelry Corporation, et al. v. Binamira, 639 Phil. 1, 10-11 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division].
139Rollo (G.R. No. 173952), p. 182, National Labor Relations Commission Decision.
140 Id.
141Somerville Stainless Steel Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 350 Phil. 859, 871-872 (1998) [Per J. Panganiban, First Division].
142 Id.
143 Id. at 872.
144 CONST., art. XIII, sec. 3 provides:
SECTION 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.
145Arabit v. Jardine Pacific Finance, Inc. (formerly MB Finance), G.R. No. 181719, April 21, 2014, 722 SCRA 44, 61 [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
146 Article 298 was formerly Article 283, before it was renumbered by DOLE Department Advisory No. 1, Series of 2015.
147Central Azucarera de la Carlota v. National Labor Relations Commission, 321 Phil. 989, 995 (1995) / [Per J. Kapunan, First Division].
148 LABOR CODE, art. 298.
149Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), p. 1021, PAL's Memorandum.
150 Id. at 1103-1104, Dawal, et al.'s Memorandum.
151 Id. at 342, PAL's Notice of Separation to Concepcion.
152 Id. at 343, PAL's Notice of Separation to Sinobago.
153 Id. at 308-309.
154 Id. at 310-333.
155 Id. at 339, PAL's Notice of Separation to Dawal.
156 Id. at 394, Nicomedes Romero's Affidavit.
157 Id. at 337.
158 Id. at 393.
159 Id.
160 Id. at 1096-1100, Dawal, et al.'s Memorandum.
161 Id. at 1086.
162Wiltshire File Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 271 Phil. 694, 706-707 (1991) [Per J. Feliciano, Third Division].
163 LABOR CODE, art. 298.
164Wiltshire File Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 271 Phil. 694, 706-707 (1991) [Per J. Feliciano, Third Division].
165 LABOR CODE, art. 282 provides:
Art. 282. Termination by employer. An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following just 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 representative; and (e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
166Wiltshire File Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 271 Phil. 694, 706 (1991) [Per J. Feliciano, Third Division].
167Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), pp. 1002-1023, PAL's Memorandum.
168Rollo (G.R. No. 173952), p. 203, National Labor Relations Commission Decision.
169Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), p. 116, Court of Appeals Decision.
170 Id.
171 Id. at 111.
172 Id. at 116.
173 318 Phil. 635 (1995) [Per J. Davide Jr., First Division].
174 Id. at 645-646.
175General Milling Corporation v. Viajar, G.R. No. 181738, January 30, 2013, 689 SCRA 598, 610 [Per J. Reyes, First Division].
176 Id.
177 G.R. No. 181738, January 30, 2013, 689 SCRA598 [Per J. Reyes, First Division].
178 Id. at 612.
179Rollo (G.R. No. 173952), p. 367, PAL's Consolidated Rejoinder.
180Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), p. 1016, PAL's Memorandum. Thirty-seven positions were offered in the new engineering department, while 196 retrenched employees who were not absorbed by Lufthansa Technik Philippines were offered jobs in various departments within PAL.
181 Id. at 117, Court of Appeals Decision.
182 Id. at 118.
183General Milling Corporation v. Viajar, G.R. No. 181738, January 30, 2013, 689 SCRA 598, 612 [Per J. Reyes, First Division].
184Manila Polo Club Employees' Union (MPCEU) FUR-TUCP v. Manila Polo Club, Inc., G.R. No. 172846, July 24, 2013, 702 SCRA 20, 29-30 [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].
185Banana Growers Collective at Puyod Farms v. National Labor Relations Commission, 342 Phil. 511, 520 (1997) [Per J. Romero, Second Division].
186Oriental Petroleum and Minerals Corporation v. Fuentes, 509 Phil. 684, 694 (2005) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
187F.F. Marine Corporation v. The Second Division National Labor Relations Commission, 495 Phil. 140, 157-158 (2005) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
188Guerrero v. National Labor Relations Commission, 329 Phil. 1069, 1075 (1996) [Per J. Puno, Second Division].
189Asian Alcohol Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 364 Phil. 912, 926 (1999) [Per J. Puno, Second Division].
190Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), p. 1009, PAL's Memorandum, citing Revidad v. National Labor Relations Commission, 315 Phil. 372, 389 (1995) [Per J. Regalado, Second Division] and Asian Alcohol Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 364 Phil. 912, 927-928 (1999) [Per J. Puno, Second Division].
191 Id. at 362-391, PAL Financial Statements as of March 31, 1999 and 1998 and for the years ended March 31, 1999, 1998 and 1997.
192 Id. at 365.
193 Id. at 1009, PAL's Memorandum.
194 Id. at 1079, Dawal, et al.'s Memorandum.
195 Id. at 1083.
196 Id. at 1082.
197 Id. at 251-280, PAL Financial Statements as of March 31, 1998, and 1997 and for the years ended March 31, 1998, 1997, and 1996; and 362-391, PAL Financial Statements as of March 31, 1999, and 1998 and for the years ended March 31, 1999, 1998, and 1997.
198 Id. at 1009, PAL's Memorandum.
199 Id. at 408-443.
200 Id. at 414, PALEA and Dawal, et al.'s Reply.
201 Id. at 431.
202 Id.
203 Id. at 453-468.
204 Id. at 455.
205 Id. at 1079, Dawal, et al.'s Memorandum.
206 Id. at 1079-1096.
207 Id. at 1009, PAL's Memorandum.
208 CONST., art. XIII, sec. 3, par. 1; See LABOR CODE, art. 3.
209 533 Phil. 283 (2006) [Per J. Puno, Second Division].
210 Id. at 291.
211 150-A Phil. 540 (1972) [Per J. Makasiar, En Banc].
212 Id. at 555.
213Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), p. 1009, PAL's Memorandum.
214 LABOR CODE, art. 277(b) provides:
Article 211. Miscellaneous provisions....
(b) . . . The burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause shall rest on the employer[.]
215See TAX CODE, sec. 232.
216See SECURITIES CODE, sec. 17.
217Salas v. Sta. Mesa Market Corporation, 554 Phil. 343, 348 (2007) [Per J. Corona, First Division]:
"Financial statements, whether audited or not, are, as general rule, private documents. However, once financial statements are filed with a government office pursuant to a provision of law, they become public documents."
218 RULES OF COURT, Rule 132, secs. 19 and 23 provide:
RULE 132. Presentation of Evidence
. . . .
B. Authentication and Proof of Documents
Section 19. Classes of documents. — For the purpose of their presentation evidence, documents are either public or private. Public documents are:
. . . .
(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be entered therein.
Section 23. Public documents as evidence. — Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. All other public documents are evidence, even against a third person, of the fact which gave rise to then-execution and of the date of the latter.
219See RULES OF COURT, Rule 132, secs. 19, 23, 24, 25, 27, and 30. Public documents are admissible in evidence even without further proof of their genuineness and due execution.
220 Id. at 251-280, PAL Financial Statements as of March 31, 1998, and 1997 and for the years ended March 31, 1998, 1997, and 1996; and 362-391, PAL Financial Statements as of March 31, 1999, and 1998 and for the years ended March 31, 1999, 1998, and 1997.
221Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), pp. 431, PALEA and Dawal, et al.'s Reply; and 1082, Dawal, et al.'s Memorandum.
222Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Tongson, 459 Phil. 742, 752 (2003) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, Third Division].
223See RULES OF COURT, Rule 132(B). In contrast, in proceedings before the regular courts, a party must first authenticate the documents presented before these are accepted as evidence.
224F.F. Marine Corporation v. The Second Division National Labor Relations Commission, 495 Phil. 140, 157-158 (2005) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
225Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., et al., 581 Phil. 228, 257 (2008) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, Third Division].
226Guerrero v. National Labor Relations Commission, 329 Phil. 1069, 1075 (1996) [Per J. Puno, Second Division].
227Lambert Pawnbrokers and Jewelry Corporation, et al. v. Binamira, 639 Phil. 1, 11-12 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division].
228Rollo, (G.R. No. 173921), p. 1022, PAL's Memorandum.
229 Id. at 1021.
230 Id. at 237, PAL's Amended and Restated Rehabilitation Plan.
231 Id. at 227.
232 495 Phil. 140 (2005) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
233 Id. at 158.
234Oriental Petroleum and Minerals Corporation v. Fuentes, 509 Phil. 684, 691 (2005) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
235Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), p. 1015, PAL's Memorandum.
236 Id. at 234. PAL's Amended and Restated Rehabilitation Plan.
237 Id.
238 Id.
239See F.F. Marine Corporation v. The Second Division National Labor Relations Commission, 495 Phil. 140, 157-158 (2005) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
240Rollo (G.R. No. 173952), p. 202, Labor Arbiter's Decision.
241International Management Services, et al. v. Logarta, 686 Phil. 21, 31 (2012) [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].
242Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), p. 1012, PAL's Memorandum.
243 Id. at 1013.
244 Id.
245 Id. at 1016.
246 Id. at 1013.
247 Id. at 1017.
248 Id. at 1019-1020. PAL claims that the retrenched employees "were paid the equivalent of one (1) month pay based on their latest basic salary monthly salary plus 25% thereof as separation pay aside from vacation and sick leave cash commutation based on their last monthly basic rate; prorated 13th and 14th months pay; [Critical Skills Retention Plan Program] retained premium; Travel Benefits for separated employee and his qualified dependents; Medical Benefits for separated employee and his qualified dependents and PAL Share of Stocks."
249 Id. at 1014.
250 Id. at 112, Court of Appeals Decision.
251Rollo (G.R. No. 173952), pp. 195-196, Labor Arbiter's Decision.
252Rollo (G.R. No. 173952), p. 196, Labor Arbiter's Decision.
253 Id. at 196-197.
254 Id. at 197.
255Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), p. 340, PAL's Job Offer to Dawal.
256Rollo (G.R. No. 173952), p. 207, Labor Arbiter's Decision.
257Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), p. 340, PAL's Job Offer to Dawal.
258 Id. at 1016, PAL's Memorandum.
259Rollo (G.R. No. 173952), p. 207, Labor Arbiter's Decision.
260 Id. at 367, PAL's Consolidated Rejoinder.
261 Id.
262 Id.
263Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), p. 1021, PAL's Memorandum.
264Rollo (G.R, No. 173952), p. 202, Labor Arbiter's Decision.
265Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), p. 1028, PAL's Memorandum.
266 Id. at 348-350, Release, Waiver and Quitclaim. Dawal, Concepcion, and Sinobago received P590,511.90, P588,575.75, and P411,539.98, respectively.
267 Id. at 1000, PAL's Memorandum.
268Rollo (G.R. No. 173952), pp. 199 and 202, Labor Arbiter's Decision.
269Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), p. 110, Court of Appeals Decision; rollo (G.R. No. 173952), p. 202, Labor Arbiter's Decision.
270Rollo (G.R. No. 173952), p. 202 Labor Arbiter's Decision.
271Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), p. 111, Court of Appeals Decision.
272 332 Phil. 937 (1996) [J. Mendoza, Second Division].
273Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), p. 1017, PAL's Memorandum.
274AG & P United Rank and File Association v. National Labor Relations Commission, 332 Phil. 937, 945-946 (1996) [J. Mendoza, Second Division].
275Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), p. 340, PAL's Job Offer to Dawal.
276F.F. Marine Corporation v. The Second Division National Labor Relations Commission, 495 Phil. 140, 158 (2005) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
277Soriano, Jr. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 550 Phil. 111, 131 (2007) [Per J. Chico- Nazario, Third Division].
278Wyeth-Suaco Laboratories, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 100658, March 2, 1993, 219 SCRA 356, 362 [Per J. Melo, Third Division].
279Marcos v. National Labor Relations Commission, 318 Phil. 172, 182 (1995) [Per J. Regalado, Second Division].
280Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), p. 348, Dawal's Release, Waiver and Quitclaim.
281 Id. at 349, Concepcion's Release, Waiver and Quitclaim.
282 Id. at 350, Sinobago's Release, Waiver and Quitclaim.
283F.F. Marine Corporation v. The Second Division National Labor Relations Commission, 495 Phil. 140, 158 (2005) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
284Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), p. 111, Court of Appeals Decision.
285 Id. at 111, Court of Appeals Decision, and 283, PAL-PALEA Memorandum of Agreement.
286 Id. at 995, PAL's Memorandum.
287Rollo (G.R. No. 173952), p. 206, Labor Arbiter's Decision.
288Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), pp. 451-452. The Minutes of the PAL-PALEA Meeting was dated June 15, 1999.
289Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), p. 1011, PAL's Memorandum.
290 Id. at 287.
291 Id.
292Rollo (G.R. No. 173952), p. 205, Labor Arbiter's Decision.
293 Id. at 209-210.
294 Id. at 205.
295Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), p. 996, PAL's Memorandum.
296 Id. at 812, PAL, et al.'s Comment in CA-G.R. SP. No. 73030.
297Rollo (G.R. No. 173952), p. 187, National Labor Relations Commission Decision.
298Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), p. 1104, Dawal, et al.'s Memorandum.
299 Id. at 1110 and 1121-1122, Dawal, et al.'s Memorandum.
300 Id. at 1111 and 1122.
301 Id. at 1106-1110.
302 Article 259 was formerly Article 248, before it was renumbered by DOLE Department Advisory No. 1, Series of 2015.
303 G.R. No. 140992, March 25, 2004. 426 SCRA 319 [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, Third Division].
304 Id. at 326.
305Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), p. 1110. Dawal, et al.'s Memorandum.
306 Id. at 1004, PAL's Memorandum.
307 Id.
308 Id. at 1106, Dawal, et al.'s Memorandum.
309 Id. at 165, PALEA and Dawal, et al.'s Amended Complaint and Position Paper.
310 Id. at 158.
311 Id. at 160.
312 Id. at 200.
313Rollo (G.R. No. 173952), p. 187, National Labor Relations Commission Decision.
314 Id. at 98-99, Court of Appeals Resolution.
315Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), p. 186, PAL President Avelino Zapanta's letter dated March 27, 2000, addressed to former PALEA Secretary Jose T. Peñas III.
316 Id. at 571-582, DOLE-NCR Decision in NCR-OD-0003-010-IRD. The Decision dated June 15, 2000 was penned by Regional Director Maximo B. Lim.
317Rollo (G.R. No. 173952), pp. 98, Court of Appeals Resolution; and 188, National Labor Relations Commission Decision.
318 Id.
319Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), pp. 1108-1110, Dawal, et al.'s Memorandum.
320 Id. at 1106-1108.
321 Article 274 was formerly Article 261, before it was renumbered by DOLE Department Advisory No. 1, Series of 2015.
322 340 Phil. 286 (1997) [Per J. Romero. Second Division].
323 Id. at 299-300.
324San Miguel Foods, Inc. v. San Miguel Corporation Employees Union-PTWGO, 561 Phil. 263, 271 (2007) [Per J. Carpio Morales, Second Division].
325Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), p. 113, Court of Appeals Decision; rollo (G.R. No. 173952), p. 208, Labor Arbiter's Decision.
326 Article 294 was formerly Article 279, before it was renumbered by DOLE Department Advisory No. 1, Series of 2015.
327Golden Ace Builders, et al. v. Talde, 634 Phil. 364, 370-371 (2010) [Per J. Carpio Morales, First Division].
328Montinola v. Philippine Airlines, G.R. No. 198656, September 8, 2014, 734 SCRA 439, 443 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
329 LABOR CODE, art. 294.
330 LABOR CODE, art. 294. See Valdez v. National Labor Relations Commission, 349 Phil. 760, 768 (1998) [Per J. Regalado, Second Division].
331Nacar v. Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013, 703 SCRA 439, 453 and 458 [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].
332 CIVIL CODE, art. 1701 provides:
Article 1701. Neither capital nor labor shall act oppressively against the other, or impair the interest or convenience of the public.
333 CIVIL CODE, art. 21 provides:
Article 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.
334 CIVIL CODE, art 2219 provides:
Article 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:
. . . .
(10) Acts and actions referred to in articles 21[.]
335 Civil Code, art. 2232 provides:
Article 2232. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the court may award exemplary damages if the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner.
336Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), p. 113, Court of Appeals Decision.
337Rollo (G.R. No. 173952), p. 100, Court of Appeals Resolution.
338Jaka Food Processing Corporation v. Pacot, 494 Phil. 114,122-123 (2005) [Per J. Garcia, En Banc].
339 CIVIL CODE, art. 2208(7) provides:
Article 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:
. . . .
(7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers, laborers and skilled workers[.]
340Sebuguero v. National Labor Relations Commission, 318 Phil. 635, 652 (1995) (Per J. Davide Jr., First Division].
341Rollo (G.R. No. 173952), p. 209, Labor Arbiter's Decision.
342Rollo (G.R. No. 173921), p. 121, Court of Appeals Decision.
343Lim v. HMR Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 201483, August 4. 2014, 731 SCRA 576, 603-604 [Per J. Mendoza, Third Division].
344 G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013, 703 SCRA 439, 458 [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].
345Rollo (G.R. No. 173952), p. 585, Supreme Court Resolution dated September 25, 2006.