PAL v. NLRC G.R. No.

85985 August 13, 1993 Issue: W/N the formulation of a Code of Discipline among
employees is a shared responsi bility of the employer and the
Facts: employees.
PAL completely revised its 1966 Code of Discipline. The Code was Ruling: Petitioner's assertion that it needed the implementation of
circulated amon g the employees and was immediately a new Code of Discip line considering the nature of its business
implemented, and some employees were forthwi th subjected to
cannot be overemphasized. In fact, i ts being a local monopoly in
the disciplinary measures embodied therein. The Philippine Airlines the business demands the most stringent of measures to attain safe
Employees Association (PALEA) filed a complaint before t he travel for its patrons. Nonetheless, whatever disciplinary measu res
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). PALEA contended that are adopted cannot be properly implemented in the absence of full
PAL, by its unilateral implementation of the Code, was guilty of cooperatio n of the employees. Such cooperation cannot be
unfair labor practice, spec ifically Paragraphs E and G of Article 249 attained if the employees are res tive on account, of their being left
and Article 253 of the Labor Code. PA LEA alleged that copies of the out in the determination of cardinal and fu ndamental matters
Code had been circulated in limited numbers; that being penal in
affecting their employment.
nature the Code must conform with the requirements of sufficient
publication, and that the Code was arbitrary, oppressive, and
prejudicial to th e rights of the employees. It prayed that
implementation of the Code be held in abeyance; that PAL should d
iscuss the substance of the Code with PALEA; that employees
dismissed under the Code be reinstated and their cases subjected to
further hearing; and that PAL be declared guilty of unfair labor
practice and be ordered to pay damages PAL asserted its
prerogative as an employer to prescibe rules and regulations re
garding employess' conduct in carrying out their duties and
functions, and alleg ing that by implementing the Code, it had not
violated the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) or any provision
of the Labor Code. Assailing the complaint as unsupported by
evidence, PAL maintained that Article 253 of the Labor Code cited
by PALEA reffered to the requirements for negotiating a CBA which
was inapplica ble as indeed the current CBA had been negotiated.