G.R. No.

L-21120 February 28, 1967

PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC., petitioner,

vs.
PHILIPPINE AIR LINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS, respondents.

Paredes, Poblador, Cruz & Nazareno for petitioner.

Taada, Lerum & Cinco and Beltran & Lacson for respondents.
Mariano B. Tuason for respondent Court of Industrial Relations.

CONCEPCION, C.J.:

Appeal by certiorari , taken by the Philippine Air Lines, Inc. hereinafter referred to as the PAL from an order of
the Court of Industrial Relations hereinafter referred to as the CIR the dispositive part of reads:

WHEREFORE , THE Philippine Air Lines is hereby ordered to pay the four claimants, Messrs. Fortuno
Biangco, Hernando Guevarra, Bernardino Abarrientos and 140 days each, sick leave which the two may
use or enjoy according to existing company rules, and regulations regarding this privilege, and to allow
the four claimants the enjoyment of their earned and accumulated free trip passes both here and aboard
subject to the above-mentioned plan the company may adopt. In order to effect early payment of the
Christmas bonus, the Chief Examiner of the Court or his duly authorized representatives is hereby
directed to examine; pertinent records of the company, to compute and determine the Christmas bonus
due each of the four claimant and to submit a report therefore immediately upon completion of the same.

It appears that on May 4, 1950, PAL dismissed its above named four (4) employees, who are member of
the Philippine Air Lines Employees Association hereinafter referred to as PALEA and that on July
13, 1954, the CIR en banc passed resolution, in Case No. 465-V thereof, directing the reinstatement of
said employess "to their former or equivalent position in the company, with back wages from the date of
their reinstatement, and without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. This resolution
was affirmed by the Supreme Court, in G.R. No. L-8197, on October 31, 1958.

On January 14, 1959, said employees were reinstated and subsequently their backwages, computed at the rate
of their compensation at the time of the aforementioned dismissal, less the wages and salaries earned by them
elsewhere during the lay-off period, were paid to them. The employees objected to this deduction and the CIR
sustained them, in a Resolution dated May 22, 1960, which was reversed by the Supreme Court, on July 26,
1960, in G.R. No. L-15544. Soon later, or on November 10, 1960, the PALEA moved for the execution of the
CIR resolution of July 13, 1954, as regards the "other rights and privileges" therein mentioned, referring, more
specifically to: (1) Christmas bonus from 1950 to 1958; (2) accumulated sick leave; (3) transportation allowance
during lay-off period; and (4) accumulated free trip passes, both domestic and international. By an order dated
October 8, 1962, the CIR granted this motion, except as regards the sick leave of Onofre Grio and Bernardino
Abarrientos, and the transportation allowance, which were denied. Hence this appeal.

PAL maintains that the CIR has erred in acting as it did, because : (1) the aforementioned privileges were not
specifically mentioned in the CIR resolution of July 13, 1954; (2) the order of the CIR dated October 8, 1962,
had, allegedly, the effect of amending said resolution; and (3) the clause therein "without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges" should be construed prospectively, not retroactively.

Insofar as the Christmas bonus, the accumulated sick leave privileges and the transportation allowance during
the lay-off period, the PAL's contention is clearly devoid of merit. The aforementioned clause must be considered
in the light of the entire context of the resolution of July 13, 1954 and of its dispositive part. In ordering therein
the "reinstatement" of said employees with "back wages from the date of their dismissal to the date of their
reinstatement, and without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges," it is obvious that the
resolution intended to restore the employees to their status immediately prior to their dismissal.

Hence, it directed , not only their reinstatement, but, also, the payment of their back wages during the period of
their lay-off thus referring necessarily to a period of time preceding their reinstatement and the retention of
"their seniority or other rights and privileges". Rights reinstatement, but at the time? Certainly, not after their
reinstatement, but at the time of their aforementioned dismissal. In other words, the reinstatement was with back
wages for the lay-off period, coupled with "seniority or other rights and privileges", attached to the status of the
employees when they were dismissed. To put it differently, the CIR treated said employees as if they had not
been absent form work and had been uninterruptedly working during the lay-off period. 1wph1.t
Thus, in Republic Steel Corporation vs. NLRB (114 F. 2d. 820), it was held that, under a decree of the Circuit
Court of Appeals and Order of the National Labor Relations Board directing the employer to reinstate the striking
employees without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or privileges, it was the intention of the Board and
Court to provide that, upon reinstatement the employees were to be treated in matters involving seniority and
continuity of employment as though they had not been absent from work, and hence the reinstated employees
were entitled to the benefits of the employer's vacation plan for the year in which they were reinstated and
subsequent years upon the basis of continuity of service computed as though they had been actually at during
the entire period from the date of strike to the date of reinstatement.

As a consequence, the employees involved in the case at bar are entitled to the Christmas bonus that PAL had
given to all of its employees during said period, for said bonus, having been paid regularly, has become part of
the compensation of the employees.1 Said employees are, likewise, entitled to transportation allowance and the
corresponding sick leave privileges. These sick leave privileges are subject, however, to the following
qualifications, namely: (1) that the accumulated sick leave cannot exceed 140 days, pursuant to the collective
bargaining agreement between the PAL and the PALEA, effective in 1959; and (2) that, pursuant to the same
agreement, which denies sick leave privileges to retired employees, Onofre Grio and Bernardino Abarrientos,
who have retired, are not entitled to said privileges.

The PAL's appeal as regards the free trip passes is, however, well taken, for the employees had no absolute
right thereto, even if they had actually rendered services during the lay-off period. The free trip passes were
given, neither automatically, nor indiscriminately. The employees had to apply therefore and their applications
were subject PAL's approval.

Wherefore, except as to the free trip passes for the lay-off period, which should not be deemed included in the
"rights and privileges" awarded in the resolution of July 13, 1954, and subject to the qualification that the
accumulated sick leave privileges cannot exceed 140 days, the appealed resolution of October 8, 1962, is
hereby affirmed in all other respects, without pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered.
G.R. No. L-17620 August 31, 1962

FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY, petitioner,

vs.
THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITY
PROFESSORS (PACUP) and TOMAS N. AGUIRRE, respondents.

Crispin D. Baizas & Associates for petitioner.

Mariano B. Tuason for respondent Court of Industrial Relations.
Eulogio R. Lerum for the other respondents.

CONCEPCION, J.:

Appeal by certiorari, taken by the Far Eastern University, hereafter referred to as the University, from resolution
of the Court of Industrial Relations sitting en banc, modifying a decision of one of the Judges of said Court. The
main facts are set forth in said decision, from which we quote:

From the evidence on record, it appears that Tomas N. Aguirre became a faculty member of the
respondent in 1948. He was first employed at the rate of P6.00 per hour and then was contracted to
teach in the Boys' High School Department in the same university at the rate of P30.00 per class,
earning an average of P500.00 to P600.00 a month. Aguirre joined the PACUP, a legitimate labor
organization in June 1953. In July or August, 1953, upon orders of the president of the PACUP, Jose M.
Hernandez, Aguirre began to campaign and recruit members for the PACUP. As a result of his efforts in
campaigning for membership, he was able to influence seven members from the faculty of the university
(Exhibits "B", "B-1" to "B-6", inclusive). In his campaign for membership, he approached practically all of
the faculty members of the respondent's Institute of Education and some from the Arts and Sciences,
Business Administration and Finance, but most of them were afraid to join the union. They were afraid of
any retaliation that the respondent may make because of their joining the union.

In the year 1953, respondent formed a committee to classify all faculty members and determine the rates
of their backpay and assignments. Ninety-six of the more than four hundred faculty members were
classified as full time instructors. Aguirre was one of those who was classified by the said committee as
full time instructor in the respondent's Institute of Education, with a fixed compensation of P450.00 a
month, effective September 1, 1953.

During the months of December, 1953 up to May, 1954, for teaching in the Far Eastern University,
respondent herein, Aguirre was paid the following: December, 1953-P210.00; January, 1954 P302.40;
February, 1954 P313.20; March, 1954 P249.00. In June, 1954, respondent stopped giving him
teaching assignments.

Aguirre claims that in June, 1954, he was no longer given an assignment because of his union activities
while respondent claims that Aguirre was not given assignment because of decreased enrollment in the
university. He further avers that after recruiting some members, his classification as full time instructor
changed to reserved full time instructor and his teaching load was decreased to two hours a day. Hence,
his reduced earnings from December, 1953 to May, 1954 as previously mentioned. His salary as a full
time instructor was P5,400.00 per annum or P450.00 per month, irrespective of his teaching load.
Respondent, thru its witness, the dean in the Institute of Education where Aguirre was teaching, testified
and admitted that the reason for Aguirre's not receiving any teaching assignment in June, 1954 was
because enrollment in the Institute of Education was going down steadily in the Filipino Language class
where Aguirre was teaching. Among the other Filipino Language instructors are Baldomero de Jesus,
Teodoro Gener, Rosario Bernards, Dolores Gupit, Inigo Regalado, and Flordeliza Mendoza who are
older members of the faculty than Aguirre except Regalado, Bernards and Mendoza. The dean of the
Institute of Education, Luz A. Zafra, admitted also that in the assignment of subjects to faculty members,
length of service, experience, preparation and professional growth as well as student-faculty relation
were taken into consideration. Hence if these above-mentioned factors, particularly length of service and
experience, were really taken into consideration, Aguirre a full time professor should have been given
the assignment in stead of Regalado and Mendoza who were only part time professors and who started
teaching after him. The other Tagalo instructors (professors under the classification) who were given
assignments when Aguirre was not, are not members of the PACUP. It should also be noted that since
before the last war, Aguirre had been teaching in the University of the Philippines.
 It is true that there were charges brought by respondent against Aguirre but the same had been
investigated and found to be groundless. On the other hand, Aguirre brought charge against the
respondent before the Department of Education when his teaching load was reduced and the Director of
Private Schools, in his decision of November 9, 1954, directed the respondent to pay the salary
differential which Aguirre fail to earn from December 1, 1953 to 1954 and to give Aguirre assignment in
the college department during the first semester of the current school year under the same condition
before his teaching load was reduced. The Secretary of Education, in his decision, dated June 22, 1955,
affirmed the decision of the Director of Private Schools and on December 8, 1956, the Executive
Secretary, by authority of the President of the Philippines affirmed the decision of the Director of Private
School as well as the Secretary of Education's decision, previously mentioned. Of course, those
proceedings in no way could considered as controlling or affecting the case at bar. At best, they may
serve as a grim reminder of the actions, of the governmental entity that could do something to bolster the
relationship between the university and the faculty members. The allegation of respondent to the effect
that it suffered reduce enrollment in 1953-1954, hence necessitating the laying off of Aguirre, cannot be
taken into consideration after a careful examination of the balance sheet submitted by the respondent in
relation to its motion to dismiss. Said balance sheet shows that in the 1952-1953 fiscal year, respondent
made a net profit of P158,035.25 and in 1953-1954, P258,619.98, while in 1954-1955, a net profit of
P707,003.70 and in 1955-1956, P999,766.88. The figures show that respondent from 1952 to 1956, has
been steadily increasing its income until in 1958-1959 when it made net income of P1,511,293.42. And
even on the assumption the enrollment in the department where Aguirre was teaching reduced, still the
Court cannot validly reconcile the fact that Aguirre who was a full time professor receiving a fixed
monthly salary could not any further be given assignment the time professors and whose length of
service in the university cannot compare with that of Aguirre were given assignment and suffered no
reeducating in salary. Undoubtedly, this Court cannot but conclude that when the respondent changed
status of Aguirre from a full time professor at P450.00 a month to that of a reserved full time professor
with a teaching load of two hours and finally got no assignments in June, 1964, it was motivated other
than decreased enrollment, especially in the case of the evidence that Aguirre campaigned for union
membership among the professors, instructors and teachers of the respondent and the further fact, that
other full time instructors similarly situated but are not union members did not suffer the same facts of
abrupt reduction in their teaching load and salary. As indicated, Aguirre was later deprived of any
teaching load in the Institute of Education. Even part time professors as Panganiban, Mendoza and
Regalado had assignments to the exclusion of Aguirre who was a full time professor. This eventuality,
was apparently, the fear of most of the faculty members who refused to join the PACUP when Aguirre
asked them to become members.

Ordinarily, back wages are granted whenever there is a finding of a commission of unfair labor practices.
However, in this particular case the testimony of Aguirre, himself as well as the documentary evidence
on the record show that since June, 1958, Aguirre began teaching at the Philippine College of
Commerce with an income of P100.00 a month and on November 17, 1955, he began working as a
permanent employee in the Central Bank of the Philippines with a compensation of P3,000.00 per
annum. On September 5, 1956, his salary was raised to P3,600.00 per annum. The permanent
employment obtained by Aguirre in the Central Bank of the Philippines as well as in the Philippine
College of Commerce is substantial and under the concept of the Industrial Peace Act, his employment
elsewhere in a permanent capacity is sufficient to bar his reinstatement to his former position in the
respondent. While it may be true that his earnings with the Central Bank may be less than that he was
receiving from the Far Eastern University, yet his status with the Central Bank, is permanent and he
could teach as a sideline in any school, as in fact he is connected with the Philippine College of
Commerce, a fact that could not happen if he were still connected with the Far Eastern University.

At the instance of the Philippine Association of Colleges and University Professors, hereafter referred to as the
PACUP, and/or Tomas N. Aguirre, on September 28, 1954, an Acting Prosecutor of the Court of Industrial
Relations filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against the University, which later moved on November 17,
1954, to dismiss the complaint. Subsequently, or on February 4, 1955, the complainant and/or the offended
party, Tomas N. Aguirre filed a motion to withdraw said complaint upon the ground that there was a decision of
the Director of Private Schools ordering his reinstatement and the payment of back wages, as well as wage
differential, and that the University was "using the pendency" of the case "as a ground for not complying with the
said decision". Acting upon this latter motion, on March 29, 1955, the Court dismissed said complaint. However,
on August 30, 1955 the order of dismissal was, on motion of the complainant dated April 22, 1955, set aside for
the reason that the expected amicable settlement of the case had not materialized. On October 16, 1955, the
University filed a "supplemental pleading" to its motion to dismiss of November 17, 1954 both of which were
denied by the Court on June 23, 1956. Later on the University filed its answer and, the issue having been joined,
the case was tried, after which Judge Arsenio L. Martinez of said Court rendered the aforementioned decision
finding the University guilty of unfair labor practice and sentencing said institution to pay to Aguirre the salary
differential due him from December 1, 1953 to May 31, 1954, based on Aguirre's salary of P450.00 a month, as
well as back wages at the same rate, from June 1, 1954 to November 17, 1955, after deducting therefrom the
compensation paid to him by the Philippine College of Commerce from June 1, 1955 to November 17, 1955, as
well as to cease and desist from further committing unfair labor practices. However, said Judge did not order the
reinstatement of Aguirre in the University, upon the ground that his employment in the Central Bank of the
Philippines, is, within the purview of the Industrial Peace Act, a substantial equivalent of his position as full time
instructor in said University.

On motion for reconsideration filed by the complainant, a majority of the judges of said Court sitting en banc,
affirmed the decision of Judge Martinez, insofar as the commission of unfair labor practice charged and the
payment of the salary differential and back wages are concerned, but held that Aguirre's employment in the
Central Bank and the Philippine College of Commerce are not the substantial equivalent of his aforementioned
position as full time instructor in the University, and, accordingly, modified said decision by, likewise, sentencing
the University to reinstate Tomas N. Aguirre, in addition to paying him the aforementioned wages differential and
back wages plus "other emoluments". Hence this appeal by certiorari taken by the University. The Court of
Industrial Relation, as one of the appellees herein, has filed a motion, which we consider as its answer, to
dismiss the appeal for lack of merit upon the ground that appellant raises no question of law.

Appellant's contention is that the employment of Aguirre in the Central Bank and his teaching load in the
Philippine College of Commerce are substantially equivalent to his former position in the University. Upon the
other hand, the resolution appealed reached the opposite conclusion for the following reasons:

(a) Aguirre's work in the respondent university is that of a professor, ]while his work in the Central Bank
is clerical in nature;

(b) As professor Aguirre's maximum teaching period is five (5) hours daily; while in the bank he works
eight (8) hours a day;

(c) Although his work in the bank allows him to teach part time in the Philippine College of Commerce for
one hour, he could also do the same work even if he were employed in the university; and

(d) Aguirre was receiving from the respondent university P5,400.00 a year, while he receives from the
Central Bank P3,000.00 a year only. This alone fact decides the issue, namely, that Aguirre's position in
the Central Bank is not substantially equivalent to his position in the Far Eastern University. "Any
employment at lower wage rate is not substantially equivalent employment" [Willard, Inc. (1937 2 NLRB
1094, Moorseville Cotton Mills vs. NLRB (CCA-4, 1940), 2. Labor Cases. 18.576; 110 fed. (2d) 79;
Puleski Veneer Corn. (1938) 10 NLRB 136; Quidnick Dye Works, Inc. (1937) 2 NLRB 963].

Although Mr. Aguirre was, not a professor, but a full time instructor in the University, we agree with the opinion of
the lower court, sitting en banc. In addition to the circumstances relied upon by the latter, one important factor,
not mentioned in the resolution appealed from, is decisively in favor of the conclusion therein reached, and that
is that Mr. Aguirre is an instructor in Tagalog, and that, as such, his position as researcher in the Central Bank
has no future for him. The situation would perhaps have been different had his line been economics. Inasmuch,
however, as Mr. Aguirre has especialized in the Tagalog dialect, his work as a researcher in the Central Bank is
inferior to his job as full time instructor in the University, not so much because his salary in the latter is
substantially bigger, even if we add thereto his emoluments in the Philippine College of Commerce, but,
specially, because of the future his position as instructor in the University offers him as a career, which is non-
existent in the Central Bank.

WHEREFORE, the resolution appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against petitioner. It is so ordered.. 1w ph1.t