Você está na página 1de 1

PAL

vs.
PALEA and CIR
G.R. No. L-21120 February 28, 1967
By Richard Troy A. Colmenares
USA College of Law
6/24/14 11:56:22 PM
Nature of the Case
Appeal on certiorari on decision of CIR affirming the motion for execution made by private-respondent as regards the other rights and
privileges they are to be awarded.

Facts
Four private respondents who were members of PALEA (Philippine Air Lines Employees Association) were dismissed on 4 May 1950. The
On 31 October 1958, the Supreme Court affirmed the 13 July 1954 order, hereinafter known as Order# 1, of the Court of Industrial
Relations (CIR), reinstating private respondents to status quo-ante [without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges],
with backwages. Private respondents were reinstated on 14 January 1989 but contested the deduction taken from their backwages which
was affirmed by CIR on 22 May 1960 but reversed by the Supreme Court on 26 July 1960. On 10 November 1960, private respondent
moved for execution of the first order of CIR [13 July 1954] exemplifying other rights and privileges, hereinafter known as The Privileges, to
specifically mean: (1) Christmas bonus from 1950 to 1958; (2) accumulated sick leave; (3) transportation allowance during lay-off period; and
(4) accumulated free trip passes, both domestic and international. On 8 October 1962, CIR granted the latest motion, hereinafter known as
Order# 2, but denied (3) transportation allowance and sick leave credits to two other private respondents. The sick leave credits is anchored
on a maximum of 140 days and that retired employees cannot avail of sick leave credits pursuant to the parties collective bargaining
agreement (CBA). PAL contends that the privileges were not specifically mentioned in Order #1, that Order#2 amended the first, and that te
phrase without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges is to be construed after re-instatement and not during the lay-
off period. Hence, this appeal.

Issue(s)
(1). Can a reinstated employee enjoy status quo-ante as regards rights and privileges it would have enjoyed during from the time he
was dismissed to the time he was reinstated?
Held
(1). Yes, if this is an absolute right and privilege enjoyed by employees. No, if the same is

A reinstated employee enjoys a status as if he had been working during the lay-off period [from the time of his dismissal to time of
his reinstatement]. There is no doubt, therefore, that the private respondents enjoyed the rights and privileges enjoyed by other
employees who were not laid off, subject, of course, to a CBA.

Since the Christmas bonus and transportation allowances had been paid regularly to employees, it has form part of their
compensation [as an absolute right], and thus the private respondents are entitled thereof. On the other hand, since the sick leave
credits were subject to two conditions in the CBA, those conditions would govern, and in this case, the sick leave credits which the
the private-respondents are entitled to are subject to a 140 day maximum for the non-retired private-respondents and unavailability
to the two other retired private-respondents.

However, since the trip passes are not an absolute right of the employees, the same being subject to request [from employee] and
approval [from management], otherwise stated, does not automatically operate, the same cannot be awarded to the private
respondents.

Petition is therefore denied, and Order#2 is modified accordingly.

the
if otherwise [i.e. not absolute]

Você também pode gostar