8/29/2016

A.M.No.L33705

TodayisMonday,August29,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.L33705April15,1977
AIRLINEPILOTSASSOCIATIONOFTHEPHILIPPINES(GASTONGROUP),petitioner,
vs.
THECOURTOFINDUSTRIALRELATIONSandAIRLINESPILOTSASSOCIATIONOFTHEPHILIPPINES
(GOMEZGROUP),respondents.
G.R.No.L35206April15,1977
CESARCHAVEZ,JURFRANCISCOACHONDOA,SERAFINADVINCULA,MAXIMOR.AFABLE,ALFREDO
AGBULOS,SOLOMONA.HERRERA,NEMESIOALMARIO,JULIUSAQUINO,RENEARELLANO,CARLITO
ARRIBEFERNANDOAYUBOGENEROSOBALTAZAR,EDDIEBATONGMALAQUE,URSOD.BELLO,TOMAS
BERNALESRUDOLFOBIDESAUGUSTOBLANCO,HORACIOBOBISROMEOB.BONTUYANANTONINOE.
BUENAVENTURA,PEDROBUNIISABELOBUSTAMANTE,JOSEBUSTAMANTE,RICARDOBUSTAMANTE,
ERNESTOD.BUZONTRANQUILINOCABEISIDOROCALLEJA,CESARCARETAFERNANDOCARAG,
ROGELIOCASINO,JOSECASTILLO,NICANORCASTILLO,RAFAELCASTRO,JOSEDELACONCEPCION,
CARLOSCRUZ,WILFREDOCRUZ,MAGINOOCUSTODIO,TOMASDELAJOSEDELEON,BENJAMIN
DELFIN,GREGORIODELGADO,IRINEODEROTASDUMAGUINBENEDICTOFELICIANO,RODRIGOFRIAS
JOSEGIL,ANTONIOGOMEZ,ROBERTOGONZALEZ,BIENVENIDOGOROSPE,AMADOR.GULOYJOSE
GUTIERREZ,ANTONIOIBARRETAMUSSOLINIIGNACIO,ROBERTOINIGOMATIASJABIERROGELIO
JARAMILLOHARRYJISON,ALBERTOJOCSON,VALENTINLABATAJAIMELACSON,JORGELACSON,
FRANCISCOLANSANGMENANDROLAUREANO,JESUSLAQUINDANUMLEONARDOLONTOC,RAUL
LOPEZ,RENELORENZO,OSBORNELUCERO,ARISTONLUISTROMANUELLUKBAN,VIRGILIOMABABA,
MARIANOMAGTIBAY,EDGARDOMAJARAISEMILIOMALLARELEONCIOMANARANG,ALFREDO
MARBELLA,ALFREDOMARTINEZ,EDILBERTOMEDINA,CLEMENTEMIJARES,EDMUNDOMISA,
CONRADOMONTALBAN,FERNANDONAVARRETE,EUGENIONAVEAERNESTOTOMAS,NIERRAS
PATROCINIOOBRA,VICTORINOORGULLOCLEMENTEPACIS,CESARPADILLA,ROMEOPAJARILLO
RICARDOPANGILINAN,CIRILOPAREDES,AMANDOPARISALBERTOPAYUMO,PEDROPENERA
FRANCISCOPEPITO,ADOLFOPEREZ,DOMINGOPOLOTANEDUARDORAFAEL,SANTOSRAGAZA
TEODORORAMIREZ,RAFAELRAVENAANTONIOREYES,GREGORIORODRIGUEZ,LEONARDOSALCEDO,
HENRYSAMONTE,PAQUITOSAMSON,ARTHURB.SANTOS,ARTUROT.SANTOSANGELESSARTE,
VALERIANOSEGURA,RUBENSERRANO,LINOSEVERINO,ANGELSEVILLA,BENJAMINSOLIS,
PATROCINIOTAN,RAFAELTRIASEDGARDOVELASCO,LORETOVERGEIRERUBENVICTORINO,
ALEXANDERVILLACAMPA,CAMILOVILLAGONZALOBAYANIVILLANUEVA,RIZALVILLANUEVA,
ROMULOVILLANUEVA,ROLANDOVILLANUEVA,CARLOSVILLAREAL,andALFONSOSAPIRAINAND
OTHERSandAIRLINEPILOTSASSOCIATION.OFTHEPHILIPPINES(GASTON),petitioners,
vs.
THEHONORABLEJUDGESARSENIOI.MARTINEZ,AMANDOC.BUGAYONGandJOAQUINM.SALVADOR
oftheCOURTOFINDUSTRIALRELATIONS,BENHURGOMEZ,claimingtorepresentAIRLINEPILOTS
ASSOCIATIONOFTHEPHILIPPINES,CARLOSORTIZANDOTHERS,andPHILIPPINEAIRLINESINC.,
respondents.
J.C.Espinas&Associatesforpetitioner(GastonGroup)
JoseK.ManguiatJr.forrespondentCourt,etal.
E.Morabe&Associateforrespondent(GomezGroup).

CASTRO,C.J.:

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1977/apr1977/gr_33705_1977.html

1/13

8/29/2016

A.M.No.L33705

Thesearetwopetitionsforcertiorari(L33705andL35206),consolidatedforpurposesofdecisionbecausethey
involvemoreorlessthesamepartiesandinterlockingissues.
InL33705thepetitionerAirLinePilotsAssociationofthePhilippines(Gastongroup)maintainsthattheCourtof
Industrial Relations acted without jurisdiction in passing upon (1) the question of which, in a certification
proceeding,betweenthesetofofficerselectedbythegroupofPhilippineAirLinespilotsheadedbyCaptainFelix
Gaston,ontheonehand,andthesetofofficerselectedbythegroupheadedbyCaptainBenHurGomez,onthe
other,isthedulyelectedsetofofficersoftheAirLinePilotsAssociationofthePhilippines,and(2)thequestionof
which,betweenthetwogroups,isentitledtothename,officeandfundsofthesaidAssociation.
In L35206 the individual petitioners (numbering 127) and the Air Line Pilots Association of the Philippines
(hereinafter referred to as ALPAP) (Gaston maintain that the industrial Court acted without jurisdiction and with
graveabuseofdescretioninpromulgatingitsresolutiondatedJune19,1972whichsuspendedthehearingofthe
saidpetitioners'pleabelowforreinstatementand/orreturntoworkinthePhilippineAirLines(hereinafterreferred
toasPAL)or,alternatively,thepaymentoftheirretirementand/orseparationpay,asthecasemaybe,untilthis
Court,shallhavedecidedL33705.
L33705
On January 2, 1971, the Air Line Pilots Association of the Philippines, represented by Ben Hur Gomez who
claimedtobeitsPresident,filedapetitionwiththeCourtofIndustrialRelationsprayingforcertificationasthesole
and exclusive collective bargaining representative of "all the pilots now under employment by the Philippine Air
Lines,Inc,andareonactiveflightand/oroperationalassignments."Thepetitionwhichwasdocketedinthesala
ofJudgeJoaquinM.SalvadorasCase2939MCwasopposedinthenameofthesameassociationbyFelixC.
Gaston(whoalsoclaimedtobeitsPresident)onthegroundthattheindustrialcourthasnojurisdictionoverthe
subjectmatter o" the petition "because a certification proceeding in the Court of Industrial Relations is not the
proper forum for the adjudication of the question as to who is the lawful president of a legitimate labor
organization."
OnMay29,1971,afterhearingthepetition,JudgeSalvadorrenderedadecisioncertifyingthe
...ALPAPcomposedonlyofpilotsemployedbyPALwithCapt.BenHurGomezasitspresident,as
thesoleandexclusiveBargainingrepresentativeofallthepilotsemployedbyPALandareonactive
flights and/or operational assignments, and as such is entitled to all the rights and privileges of a
legitimatelabororganization,includingtherighttoitsofficeanditsunionfunds.
The following circumstances were cited by Judge Salvador to justify the conclusions reached by him in his
decision,namely:
(a) that there has been no certification election within the Period of 12 months prior to the date the petition for
certificationwasfiled
(b) that the PAL entered into a collective bargaining agreement with ALPAP for "pilots in the employ of the
Company"onlyforthedurationoftheperiodfromFebruary1,1969toJanuary31,1972:
(c)thatPALpilotsbelongingtotheGaston,group,indefianceofcourtordersissuedinCase101IPA(B)(seeL
35206,infra)retired/resignedenmassefrom the PAL and retired/resigned accompanied this with actual acts of
notreportingforwork
(d) that the pilots affiliated with the Gaston group tried to then deposits and other funds from the ALPAP
CooperativeCredituniononthegroundthattheyhavealreadyretired/resignedfromPAL
(e)thatsomeofthemembersoftheGastonGroupjoinedanotherairlineaftertheirretirement/resignation
(f) that the Gaston group claimed before the industrial court that the order enjoining them from retiring or
resigningconstitutedaviolationoftheprohibitionagainstinvoluntaryservitude(seeL35206,infra)
(g) that the contention that the mess retirement or resignation was merely an involuntary protest by those
affiliated with the Gaston group is not borne out by the evidence as, aside their aforementioned acts, the said
group of pilots even filed a civil complaint against the PAL in which the cessation of their employment with PAL
wasstronglyexpressedbythem.
Itappearsthatpriortothefilingofthecertificationpetitionbelow,ageneralALPAPmembershipmeetingwasheld
onOctober30,1970,atwhich221outof270membersadoptedaresolutionamendingALPAP'sconstitutionand
bylawsbyprovidinginanewsectionthereofthat
Anyactivememberwhoshallbeforcedtoretireorforcedtoresignorotherwiseterminatedforunion
activities as solely determine' by the Association shall have the option to either continue to be and
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1977/apr1977/gr_33705_1977.html

2/13

8/29/2016

A.M.No.L33705

remainasanactivememberingoodstandingortoresigninwritinghisactivemembershipwiththe
Association....
AccordingtoALPAP(Gaston),theforegoingamendmentwasadopted"Inanticipationonthefactthattheymay
beforcedtoresignorretirebecauseoftheir'unionactivities.'Atthisperiodoftime,PALandALPAPwerelocked
inalabordisputecertifiedbythePresidenttotheIndustrialcourtanddocketedasCase101IPA(B)(seeL35206,
infra).
OnDecember12,1970,despiteanoworkstoppageorderoftheindustrialcourt,asubstantialmajorityofALPAP
membersfiledlettersofretirement/resignationfromthePAL.
Thereafter,onDecember1822,1970,anelectionofALPAPofficerswasheld.resultingintheelectionofFelixC.
Gaston as President by 180 votes. Upon the other hand, on December 23, 1970, about 45 pilots who did not
tendertheirretirementorresignationthePALgatheredatthehouseofAtty.MorabeandelectedBenHurGomez
asALPAPPresident.
OnJune3,1971,ALPAP(Gaston)filedanoppositioninCase101IPABtoanurgentexpartemotionofthePALto
enjointhemembersofALPAPfromretiringorresigningenmasseItwasclaimedbyALPAP(Gaston)that
1.Insofarashereinoppositorsareconcerned,theallegationsofrespondentthattheir'resignations'
and 'retirements' are sham resignations and retirements and that 'There is no honest or genuine
desiretoterminatetheemployeerelationshipwithPALarecompletelyfalse.Theirbonafideintention
to terminate their employeremployee relationship with PAL is conclusively shown by the fact that
they have not sought reinstatement in or reemployment by PAL and also by the fact that they are
eitherseekingemploymentinanotherairlinecompany
2.Respondentineffectrecognizedsuchbonafideintentionofthehereinoppositorsasshownbythe
factthatitacceptedsaidresignationsandretirementsanddidnotinitiateanycontemptproceedings
againstthemand
3. The action of herein oppositors in filing their resignations and retirements was a legitimate
exerciseoftheirlegalandconstitutionalrightsandthesame,therefore,cannotbeconsideredasa
valid ground to deprive them of benefits which they had already earned including, among others,
retirement benefits to which they are entitled under the provisions of an existing contract between
petitioner and respondent. Such deprivation would constitute impairment of the obligations of
contract.
OnJune15,1971,theindustrialcourtenbanc,actingonamotionforreconsiderationfiledbyALPAP(Gaston)in
Case 2939MC against the decision of Judge Salvador, denied the same. The said court's resolution was then
appealedtothisCourt(L33705).
L35206
OnOctober3,1970,thePresidentofthePhilippinescertifiedalabordisputebetweenmembersofALPAPandthe
PALtotheCourtofIndustrialRelations.Thedisputewhichhadtodowithunioneconomicdemandswasdocketed
asCaseNo.101IPA(B)andwasassignedtoJudgeAnsbertoP.Paredes.
OnOctober7,1970,afterconferringwithbothpartiesfortwodays,JudgeParedesissuedareturntoworkorder,
thepertinentportionsofwhichreadasfollows:
PALEA and ALPAP, their officers and members, and i 11 employees who have joined the present
strikewhichresultedfromthelabordisputescertifiedbythePresidenttotheCourt,orwhohavenot
reportedforworkasaresultofthestrikes,areherebyorderedforthwithtocalloffthestrikesandlift
the picket lines ... and return to work not later than Friday, October 9, 1970, and management to
admit them back to work under the same terms and conditions of employment existing before the
strikes,includingwhathasbeenearliergrantedherein.
PALisorderednottosuspend,dismissorlayoffanyemployeeasaresultofthesestrikes.Readinto
thisorderistheprovisionofSection19,C.A.103,asamended,fortheguidanceoftheparties,
xxxxxxxxx
Failure to comply with any provision of this Order shall constitute contempt of court, and the
employeefailingorrefusingtoworkbyOctober9,1970,withoutjustifiablecause,shallimmediately
bereplacedbyPAL,andmaynotbereinstatedwithoutpriorCourtorderandonjustifiablegrounds.
On October 10, 1970, Judge Paredes, having been informed that the strikes had not been called off, issued
anotherorderdirectingthestrikerstolifttheirpicketsandreturntoworkandexplainingthathisorderofOctober
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1977/apr1977/gr_33705_1977.html

3/13

8/29/2016

A.M.No.L33705

7,1970partookofthenatureofamandatoryinjunctionunderthedoctrinelaiddowninPhilippine Association of
FreeLaborUnion(PAFLU)vs.Hon,JoaquinM.Salvador,etal.,(L29471andL29487,September28,1968).
Thestrike,however,continueduntiltheindustrialcourtenbancdenied,onOctober19,1970,ALPAP'smotionfor
reconsiderationofthesaidorders.
OnOctober22,1970,thestrikersreturnedtowork,except(accordingtothePAL)twopilots,oneofthembeing
Felix C. Gaston who allegedly refused to take the flights assigned to him. Due to his refusal, among other
reasons, PAL terminated Gaston's services on October 27, 1970. His dismissal was reported to the industrial
courtonOctober29,1970.Thereafter,thecourtaquoset the validity of Gaston's dimissal for hearing, but, on
severaloccassions,herefusedtosubmithissidebeforethehearingexaminer,claimingthathiscasewouldbe
prosecutedthroughtheproperforumatthepropertime.
OnNovember24,1970,thePALfiledanurgentexpartemotionwiththeindustrialcourttoenjointhemembersof
ALPAPfromproceedingwiththeirintentiontoretireorresignenmasse.OnNovember26,1970,JudgeParedes
issuedanordercommandingALAPAPmembers
...nottostrikeorinanywaycauseanystoppageintheoperationandserviceofPAL,underpainof
dismisalandforfeitureofrights,andpriviliegesaccruingtotheirrespectiveemploymentsshouldthey
disregard this Order and PAL is also ordered not to lockout any of such members and officers of
ALPAPunderpainofcontemptandcancellationofitsfranchise.
ALPAPfiledamotionforthereconsiderationoftheforegoingorderclaiming,amongother,thatitsubjectedthem
toinvoluntaryservitude:
ItiscrystalclearthatthedisputedOrderineffectcompelsthemembersofpetiitionertoworkagainst
theirwill.Stateddifferently,themembersofpetitionerassociationarebiengpercedorforcedbythe
Trial Court to be in a state of slavery for the beneift of respondent corporation. In this regard,
therefore,theTrialCourtgrosslyviolatedaConstitutionalmandatewhichstates:
Noinvoluntaryservitudeinanyformshallexistexceptasapunishmentforcrimewhereoftheparty
shallhavebeendulyconvicted.(ArticleIII,Section1(13)).
The constitutional provision does not provide any condition as to the cause or causes of the
unwillingnesstowork.Sufficeittosaythatanemployeeforwhateverreasonofhisown.cannotbe
compelledandforcedtoworkagainsthiswill.
Thecourtaquohowever,deniedtheforegoingmotionforreconsiderationonDecember11,1970.
Just the same, on December 12, 1970, a substantial majority of the members of ALPAP staged a mass
resignationand/orretirementfromPAL
Invigorousprotesttoyourprovocativeharrassment,unfairlabortactics,thecontemptuouslockoutof
ourcomembersandyourviciousandvindictiveattitudetowardslabormostexemplifiedbytheillegal
terminationoftheservicesofourPresident,Capt,FelixC.Gaston
Thementionedindividuallettersofretirement/resignationwereacceptedbyPALonDecember14,1970,withthe
caveat that the pilots concerned will not be entitled to any benefit or privilege to which they may otherwise be
entitledbyreasonoftheiremploymentwiththePAL,asthepilots'actsconstitutedRviolationoftheNovember26,
1970orderoftheindustrialcourt.
OnDecember28,1970,BenHurGomez,allegingthathewaselectedPresidentofALPAPbyitsmemberswho
didnotjointhemassresignationandretirement,filedamotioninCase101IPAbyprayingthathebeallowedto
representtheALPAPwhichwastheretoforerepresentedbyCapt.FelixGastonbecausethepilotswhoretiredor
resignedfromPALceasedtobeemployeesThereofandnolongerhaveanyinterestinthesubjectmatterofthe
saidcase.ThiswaslaterconvertedintoamotiontointerveneonFebruary9,1971.
OnSeptember1,1971,FelixGastonfiledamotionforContemptagainstPALstatingthathisdismissalfromPAL
on October 27, 1970 was without just cause and violation of the Order of the industrial court dated October 7,
1970aswellassection19ofC.A.103.Heprayedthathebereinstated.
OnOctober23,1971,twentyonepilotswhofiledtheirretirement.fromPALfiledapetitioninthe'Industrialcourt
prayingalsothattheybereadmittedtoPALor,failingso,thattheybeallowedtoretirewiththebenefitsprovided
forunderthePALRetirementPlanor,iftheyarenotyeteibetoundersaidPlan,thattheybegivenseparation
pay,Intheirpetitionforreinstatement,saidPilots(whowerelaterjoinedbyotherpilotssimilarlysituated)alleged,
interalia

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1977/apr1977/gr_33705_1977.html

4/13

8/29/2016

A.M.No.L33705

1.Thattheyaresomeoftheemployeesoftherespondentcompanyandmembersofthepetitioner
union who resigned en masse or retired en masse from the respondent after having been led to
believeingoodfaithbyCapt.FelixGastonwhowasthentheuncontestedpresidentofthepetitioner
unionandtheircounselthatsuchamassresignationormassretirementwasavalidexerciseoftheir
right to protest the dismissal of Capt. Gaston in connection with the Certified dispute that was
pendingbeforetheCourt.
2.Thatlaterontheycametoknowthatsuchamassresignationorsurpassretirementwasenjoined
bythisHonorableCourt'underthepainof'dismissalandforfeitingofrightsandprivilegesaccruingto
theirrespectiveemploymentiftheydisregardedsuchorderofinjunction,
3. That they did not deliberately disregard such injunction order and if they failed to comply with it
withinareasonabletime,itwasbecausetheyweremadetobelieveandassuredbytheirleaderthat
suchresignationorretirementwasalawfulexerciseofconcertedactionthatthefullconsequencesof
such act was not explained to them by counsel: and in addition, they were told that those who
returnedtothecompanywouldbeexpelledfromtheunion,andsufferthecorrespondingpenalty.
xxxxxxxxx
ALPAP (Gomez) opposed the foregoing petitions. In this connection, the records disclose that on August 20,
1971,89ofthepilotswhoretiredenmassefromPALfiledacomplaintwiththeCourtofFirstInstanceofManilain
Case15084fortherecoveryofretirementbenefitsduethemunderthePALRetirementPlan.Thecomplaintwas
dismissed by the trial, court on PAL's motion. The records, however, do not disclose the reason for the said
dismissal.
OnDecember23,1971,JudgeParedesissuedanorderdeferringactiononthemotiontodismissthepetitionsfor
reinstatementonthegroundthatthemattersallegedinthesaidpetitionswouldrequiredthesubmissionofproof.
ALPAP(Gomez,)filedamotionforreconsiderationofthisorderbutthesamewasdeniedbytheindustrialcourt
enbancforbeingproforma.
On February 1, 1972, ALPAP (Gaston) joined and consolidated the mentioned petitions for reinstatement, The
samewasopposedbybothPALandALPAP(Gomez),
On March 24, 1972, ALPAP (Gomez) filed a motion to suspend the proceedings in Case 101IPA(B) until the
prejudicialquestionofwhoshouldprosecutethemaincase(Case101IPA)isresolved.OnApril18,1972,Judge
ParedesissuedanorderdeferringthehearingofthemaincaseuntilthisCourtshallhavedecidedL33705,but
allowingothermatters,includingtheconsolidatedpetitionforreinstatement,tobeheard.
On. May 5, 1972, ALPAP (Gomez) filed another motion to suspend the hearing on the mentioned petition for
reinstatement on the ground that this Court's decision in L33705 should be awaited. ALPAP (Gaston) opposed
that motion on the ground that the matter had already been denied twice and the order setting the case for
hearing was merely. On May 15, 1972, Judge Paredes denied the said motion to suspend the hearing on the
petitionforreinstatementunlessacountermandingOrderisissuedbyahigherCourt."
On May 18, 1972, ALPAP (Gomez) filed a motion for reconsideration of Judge Paredes' order, alleging that
employeestatusofthosewhoresignedorretiredenmassewasanissueinmentionedCase2939MCdecision
onwhichisstillpendingconsiderationbeforeCourtinL33705.
OnJune19,1972,theindustrialcourtenbancpassedaresolutionreversingJudgeParedes'orderontheground
thatthequestionoftheemployeestatusofthepilotswhowereseekingreinstatementwithPALhasalreadybeen
raised squarely in Case 2939MC and resolved by the said tribunal found that the said pilots have already lost
their employee status as a consequence of their resignations and/or retirement from PAL which had been duly
acceptedbythelatter.
DISCUSSION
In'ItsbriefbeforethisCourt,ALPAP(Gaston)statesthatitgoesnotquestiontherecognitionextendedbyPALto
ALPAP(Gomez)thecollectivebargainingagentofallPALpilotsonactiveflightduty.Neitherdoesitdisputethe
assumption by ALPAP (Gomez) of the authority to manage and administer the collective bargaining agreement
betweenALPAPandPAL(whichatanyratehadexpiredonJanuary31,1972)northerightofALPAP(Gomez)to
negotiate and conclude any other collective bargaining agreement with PAL. What it disputes, however, is the
authorization given by the industrial court to ALPAP (Gomez), in a certification proceeding, to take over the
corporatename,officeandfundsofALPAP.
ThisCourthasalwaysstressedthatacertificationproceedingisnotalitigation,inthesenseinwhichthistermis
ordinarily understood, but an investigation of a nonadversary, fact finding character in which the Court of
Industrial Relations plays the part of a disinterested investigator seeking merely to ascertain the desires of
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1977/apr1977/gr_33705_1977.html

5/13

8/29/2016

A.M.No.L33705

employees as to the matter of their representation (National Labor Union vs. Go Soc and Sons, 23 SCRA 436
Benguet Consolidated, Inc. vs. Bobok Lumber Jack Ass'n., L11029, May 23, 1958 Bulakena Restaurant and
Caterervs.C.I.R.,45SCRA95LVNPictures,Inc.vs.PhilippineMusiciansGuild(FFW)andC.I.R.,1SCRA132).
Such being the nature of a certification proceeding, we find no cogent reason that should prevent the industrial
court, in such a proceeding, from inquiring into and satisfying itself about matters which may be relevant and
crucial.thoughseeminglybeyondthepurviewofsuchaproceeding,tothecompleterealizationofthewellknown
purposesofacertificationcase.
Such a situation may arise, as it did in the case at bar, where a group of pilots of a particular airline, allegedly
anticipation their forced retirement or resignation on account of strained relations with the airline arising from
unfulfilledeconomicdemands,decidedtoadoptanamendmenttotheirorganization'sconstitutionandbylawsin
ordertoenablethemtoretaintheirmembershipstandingthereinevenaftertheterminationoftheiremployment
with the employer concerned. The industrial court definitely should be allowed ample discretion to secure a
disclosureofcircumstanceswhichwillenableittoactfairlyinacertificationcase.
This Court nonetheless finds, after a close and dispassionate study of the facts on record, that the industrial
court'sconclusion,thatthementionedamendmenttotheALPAPconstitutionandbylawsisillegal(a)becauseit
was not adopted in accordance with the procedure prescribed and (b) because member of labor organization
cannotadoptanamendmenttotheirfundamentalchartersoastoincludenonemployees(ofPAL)asmember,is
erroneous.
We have made a careful examination of the records of L33705 and we find the adoption of the resolution
introducing the questioned amendment to be substancial compliance with the ALPAP constitution and bylaw.
Indeed,thereisnorefutationoftheactthat221outofthe270membersofALPAPdidcasttheirvotesinfavorof
thesaidamendmentonOctober30,1970attheALPAPgeneralmembershipmeeting.
Their Court cannot likewise subcribe to the restrictive interpretation made by the court below of the term "labor
organization," which Section 2(e) of R.A. 875 defines as any union or association of employees which exist, in
whole or in part, for the purpose of the collective bargaining or dealing with employers concerning terms and
conditions of employment." The absence of the condition which the court below would attach to the statutory
conceptofalabororganization,asbeinglimitedtotheemployeesofparticularemployer,isquiteevidentfromthe
law. The emphasis of Industrial Peace Act is clearly on the pourposes for which a union or association of
employees established rather than that membership therein should be limited only to the employees of a
particularemployer.Tritetosay,underSection2(h)ofR.A875"representative"isdefineasincluding"alegitimate
labor organization or any officer or agent of such organization, whether or not employed by the employer or
employeewhomherepresents."Itcannotbeoveremphasizedlikewisethatlabordisputecanexist"regardlessof
whetherthedisputantsstandintheproximaterelationofemployerandemployee.(Section2(j),R.a.875).
There is, furthermore, nothing in the constitution and bylaws of ALPAP which indubitably restricts membership
therein to PAL pilots alone. 1 Although according to ALPAP (Gomez there has never been an instance when a
nonPAL pilot became a member of ALPAP, the complete lack of any such precondition for ALPAP membership
cannotbutbeinterpretedasanunmistakableauthorityfortheassociationtoacceptpilotsintoitsfoldthoughthey
maynotbeunderPAL'semploy.
ThefundamentalassumptionsrelieduponbytheindustrialcourtasbasesforauthorizingALPAP(Gomez)totake
overtheofficeandfundsofALPAPbeing,inthisCourt'sopinion,erroneous,and,intheabsenceofanyserious
dispute that on December 1822, 1970 Felix C. Gaston, and four other pilots, were elected by the required
majority of ALPAP members as officers of their association, this Court hereby rules that the mentioned
authorizationtoALPAP(Gomez)totakeovertheoffice,fundsandnameofALPAPwasdonewithgraveabuseof
discretion.
Moreover,thisCourtcannotholdasvalidandbindingtheelectionofBenHurGomezasPresidentofALPAP.He
waselectedatameetingofonly45ALPAPmemberscalledjustonedayaftertheelectionofFelixC.Gastonas
PresidentofALPAPwho,asshown,receivedamajorityof180votesoutofatotalmembershipof270.tenderthe
provisions of section 4, article in of the Constitution and ByLaws of ALPAP, duly elected officers of that
associationshallremaininofficeforacleastoneyear
ThetermofofficeoftheofficersoftheAssociationshallstartonthefirstdayofthefiscalyearofthe
Association.Itshallcontinueforoneyearoruntiltheyarereelectedoruntiltheirsuccessorshave
beenelectedorappointedandtakesofficeinaccordancewiththeConstitutionandbylaws.
WhilethisCourtconsiderstherulingofthecourtbelow,onthematterofwhohastheexclusiverightstotheoffice,
fundsandnameofALPAP,ashavingbeenerroneouslymade,wecannothold,however,thatthosebelongingto
thegroupofALPAP(Gomez)donotpossessanyrightatallovertheoffice,fundsandnameofALPAPofwhich
theyarealsomembers.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1977/apr1977/gr_33705_1977.html

6/13

8/29/2016

A.M.No.L33705

Inouropinion,itisperfectlywithinthepowersandprerogativesofalabororganization,throughitsdulyelected
officers,toauthorizeasegmentofthatorganizationtobargaincollectivelywithaparticularemployer,particularly
where those constituting the segment share a common and distinguishable interest, apart from the rest of their
fellowunionmembers,onmattersthatdirectlyaffectthetermsandconditionsoftheirparticularemployment.As
the circumstances pertinent to the case at bar presently stand, ALPAP (Gaston) has extended recognition to
ALPAP (Gomez) to enter and conclude collective bargaining contracts with PAL. Having given ALPAP (Gomez)
thisauthority,itwouldbeclearlyunreasonableonthepartofALPAP(Gaston)todisallowtheformeracertainuse
of the office, funds and name of ALPAP when such use is necessary or would be required to enable ALPAP
(Gomez) to exercise, in a proper manner, its delegated authority to bargain collectively with PAL. Clearly, an
intelligently considered adjustment of grievances and integration of the diverse and varying interests that not
infrequently and, often, unavoidably permeate the membership of a labor organization, will go a long way, in
achieving peace and harmony within the ranks of ALPAP. Of course, in the eventuality that the pilots presently
employedbyPALandwhosubscribetotheleadershipofBenHurGomezshouldconsiderittotheirbetterinterest
tohavetheirownseparateoffice,nameandunionfunds,nothingcanpreventthemfromsettingupaseparate
labor union. In that eventuality, whatever vested rights, interest or participation they may have in the assets,
includingcashfunds,ofALPAPasaresultoftheirmembershipthereinshouldproperlybeliquidatedinfavorof
suchwithdrawingmembersoftheassociation.
OnthematterofwhethertheindustrialcourtalsoabuseitsauthorityforallowingALPAP(Gomez)toappropriate
theALPAPname,itdoesnotappearthatthehereinpetitionerhasshownbelowanyexclusivefranchiseorrightto
theuseofthatname.Hence,thereisnoproperbasisforcorrectingtheactiontakenbythecourtbelowonthis
regard.
L35206
ThethresholdissueposedinL35206iswhethertheCourtofIndustrialRelationsactedwithoutjurisdictionand
with grave abuse of discretion in promulgating the resolution dated June 19, 1972 suspending hearings on the
mentionedpetitionforreinstatementuntilthisCourtshallhavedecidedL33705.
Wefindnomerittothechargemade.
Whileitiscorrect,assubmittedbyALPAP(Gaston),thatinthe1971caseofPhilippineFederationofPetroleum
Workers(PFPW)vs.CIR(37SCRA716)thisCourtheldthatinacertifiedlabordisputeallissuesinvolvedinthe
sameshouldbedeterminedinthecasewherethecertifieddisputewasdocketedandthatthepartiesshouldnot
bepermittedtoisolateothergermaneissuesordemandsandreservethemfordeterminationintheothercases
pending before other branches of the industrial court, noncompliance with this rule is at best an error in
procedure, rather than of jurisdiction, which is not beyond the power of this Court to review where sufficient
reasonsexists,asituationnotobtaininginthecaseatbar.
Afterathoroughgoingstudyoftherecordsofthesetwoconsolidatedpetitions,thisCourtfindsthatthematterof
the reinstatement of the pilots who retired or resigned from PAL was ventilated fully and adequately in the
certification case in all its substantive aspects, including the allegation of the herein petitioners that they were
merelyledtobelieveingoodfaiththatinretiringorresigningfromPALtheyweresimplyexercisingtheirrightsto
engageinconcertedactivity.Inthelightofthecircumstancesthusfoundbelowitcanbesafelyconcludedthatthe
massretirementandresignationactionofthehereinpetitionerswasintentionallyplannedtoaborttheeffectsof
theOctober7,10and19,1970returntoworkordersoftheindustrialcourt(whichthey,infact,ignoredformore
thanaweek)byplacingthemselvesbeyondthejurisdictionalcontrolofthesaidcourtthroughtheumbrellaofthe
constitutional, prohibition against involuntary servitude, thereby enabling them to pursue their main pressure
objectiveofgroundingmost,ifnotall,PALflightoperations.Clearly,thepowersgiventotheindustrialcourtina
certifiedlabordisputewillbemeaninglessanduselesstopursuewhereitsjurisdictioncannotoperate.
We cannot consequently disagree with the court a quo when it concluded that the actuations of the herein
petitionersaftertheyretiredandresignedenmassetheirretrievalofdepositsandotherfundsfromtheALPAP
CooperativeCreditUniononthegroundthattheyhavealreadyretiredorresigned,theiremploymentwithanother
airline, the filing of a civil suit for the recovery of their retirement pay where they invoked the Provision against
involuntaryservitudetoobtainpaymentthereof,andtheirrepeatedmanifestationsbeforetheindustrialcourtthat
theirretirementandresignationwerenotsham,butvoluntary,andintentionalare,intheaggregate,indubitable
indicationsthatthesaidpilotsdidretire/resignfromPALwithfullawarenessoftheLikelyconsequencesoftheir
acts. Their protestations of good faith, after nearly a year of underscoring the fact that they were no longer
employedwithPAL,cannotbutappeartoareasonablemindasalateandregrettableratiocination.
Parenthetically, contrary to ALPAP (Gaston)'s argument that the pilots' retirement' resignation was a legitimate
concerted activity , citing Section 2(1) of the Industrial Peace Act which defines "strike" as "any temporary
stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial dispute," it is worthwhile to
observethatasthelawdefinesit,astrikemeansonlya"temporarystoppageofwork."Whatthementionedpilots
did, however, cannot be considered, in the opinion of this Court, as mere "temporary stoppage of work." What
they contemplated was evidently a permanent cutoff of employment relationship with their erstwhile employer,
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1977/apr1977/gr_33705_1977.html

7/13

8/29/2016

A.M.No.L33705

the Philippine Air Lines. In any event, the dispute below having been certified as existing in an industry
indispensable to the national interest, the said pilots' rank disregard for the compulsory orders of the industrial
court and their daring and calculating venture to disengage themselves from that court's jurisdiction, for the
obviouspurposeofsatisfyingtheirnarroweconomicdemandstotheprejudiceofthepublicinterest,areevident
badgesofbadfaith.
Alegitimateconcertedactivityisamatterthatcannotbeusedtocircumventjudicialordersorbetossedaround
likeaplaythingDefinitely,neitheremployersnoremployeesshouldbeallowedtomakeofjudicialauthorityanow
youvegotitnowyoudont affair. The courts cannot hopefully effectuate and vindicate the sound policies of the
Industrial Peace Act and all our labor laws if employees, particularly those who on account of their highly,
advancedtechnicalbackgroundandrelativelybetterlifestatusarefarabovethegeneralworkingclassspectrum,
will be permitted to defy and invoke the jurisdiction of the courts whenever the alternative chosen will serve to
feathertheirpureandsimpleeconomicdemands.
ACCORDINGLY,inL33705theresolutionoftheCourtofIndustrialRelationsdatedJune15,1971upholdingthe
decisionofJudgeJoaquinM.SalvadordatedMay29,1971isherebymodifiedinaccordancewiththeforegoing
opinion.Felix6.GastonorwhoevermaybetheincumbentPresidentofALPAPisherebyorderedtogivetoany
member withdrawing his membership from ALPAP whatever right, interest or participation such member may
haveintheassets,includingcashfunds,ofALPAPasaresultofhismembershipinthatassociation.
InL35206,thepetitionassailingtheresolutionoftheCourtofIndustrialRelationsdatedJune19,1972,ishereby
dismissed for lack of merit insofar as the petitioners' allegations of their right to reinstatement with PAL is
concerned.Withreferencetothealternativeaction,re:paymentoftheirclaimsforretirementorseparationpay,
the Secretary of Labor, in accordance with the applicable procedure prescribed by law, is hereby ordered to
determine whether such claim is in order, particularly in view of the caveat made by PAL, in accepting the
petitioners' individual letters of retirement/resignation, that said petitioners shall not be entitled to any benefit or
privilege to which they may otherwise be entitled by reason of their employment with PAL as the former's acts
constitutedaviolationoftheorderoftheindustrialcourtdatedNovember26,1970.
Withoutcostsinbothinstances.
Barredo,Makasiar,Antonio,MuozPalma,Concepcion,Jr.,andMartin,JJ.,concur.
Fernando,J,concursintheopinionoftheChiefJusticeinL33705andintheopinionofJusticeTeehankeeinL
35206.
Aquino,J.,tooknopart.

SeparateOpinions

TEEHANKEE,J.,concurring:
In L33705, a certification proceeding, I concur with the ruling 1 that there is nothing in the law which supports
respondent court's restrictive interpretation that would limit membership in a labor organization to the employees of a
particular employer, (for such an archaic view would be practically a death blow to the cause of unionism and would
fragment unions into as many employers that there may be) and that specifically in the case of ALPAP (Air Line Pilots
Association of the Philippines) there is nothing in its Constitution and bylaws that would restrict its membership to
PhilippineAirLines,Inc.(PAL)pilotsalone.(Obviously,theorganizationalsetupwasforALPAPasauniontobecomposed
of all airline pilots in the Philippines regardless of employer, patterned after the ALPAP (Air Line Pilots Association) in the
United States which has a reputed membership of 46,000 with locals established by the members at their respective
companiesofemployment).

The Court therefore properly upheld the election of the Gaston faction by a clear majority of the ALPAP
membership (1221 out of 270) as against the Gomez faction of 45 members recognized Gaston's election as
presidentofALPAPasagainsttherumpelectionofGomeztothesamepositionandruledoutrespondentcourt's
action of authorizing the Gomez faction to take over the office, funds and name of ALPAP as a grave abuse of
discretionandanullity.
Ofcourse,onlythepilotsactuallyintheemployofthePALtotheexclusionofthosewhohadresignedorretired
orotherwisebeenseparatedfromitsemploymentcouldtakepartinthePALcertificationelection.Undernormal
circumstances, the ALPAP as the duly organized labor union (composed of both factions) would manage and
administerthecollectivebargainingagreementarrivedatbetweenemployerandemployees.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1977/apr1977/gr_33705_1977.html

8/13

8/29/2016

A.M.No.L33705

Butthisdidnotholdtrueinthepresentcase,sinceineffecttheGomezfactionconsistingofpilotswhocontinued
intheemployofPALanddidnotfollowtheactionofthemajoritycomposingtheGastonfactionofresigningand
retiring en masse from their employment separated themselves from ALPAP and were granted separate
recognitionbyPALastheALPAP(Gomez)factionconstitutingtheexclusivecollectivebargainingrepresentation
forthepilotswhocontinuedinitsemploy,TheoriginalunionALPAPasheadedbyGastononconcedesthisand
makesitquiteclearinitsbriefthatitdoesnotquestiontherecognitionextendedbyPALtotheGomezfactionnor
the latter's right to manage and administer the collective bargaining agreement and to negotiate and conclude
anyothercollectivebargainingagreementwithPAL.
The actual dispute was thus reduced to whether the Gomez faction in separating themselves from ALPAP as
headedbyGastoncouldtakeoverandappropriatethecorporatename,officeandfundsofALPAP,asauthorized
byrespondentcourt.
Such takeover or appropriation of ALPAP by the Gomez faction could not be validly done nor authorized by
respondentcourt,asnowruledbythisCourt.ButsinceALPAPdoesrecognizetherightoftheGomezfactionto
separate and secede from ALPAP and for the members of the Gomez faction composed of pilots who have
remainedintheemployofPALtoformtheirownunion,theCourt'sjudgmenthasorderedALPAPasheadedby
Gastonastherecognizedpresidentthereoforhisdulyelectedsuccessortogivetoanywithdrawingmemberi.e.
themembersoftheGomezfaction"whateverright.interestorparticipationsuchmembermayhaveintheassets,
includingcashfundsofALPAPasaresultofhismembershipinthatassociation."
I take this to mean that ALPAP is thereby ordered to liquidate the membership of each withdrawing member
although ALPAP is a nonstock association) and give him the equivalent of the net book value in cash of his
aliquotshareinthenetassetofALPAPasofthedateofwithdrawalofdefactooftheGomezfactionwhichmay
befixedasDecember23,1970,thelatewhenBenHurGomezwaselectedaspresidentofhisfactionbyALPAP
memberswhodidnojointhemassresignationofretirement,IbelievethatinfairnesstheEquivalentvalueofany
use made by the Gomez faction of the ALPAP office and funds from and after their date of withdrawal (which
obviouslywasinandfortheirownexclusiveinterestandbenefit)shouldinturnbeoffsetagainstwhatevermaybe
determinedtobethecollectivevalueoftheirALPAPmembershipasofthedateoftheirwithdrawalonDecember
23,1970.
InL35206,thejudgmentpennedbytheChiefJusticerejectsthepetitionerspilots'petitionforreadmissiontoPAL
andtheirroundsinsupportthereof,interalia,thattheywereledtobelieveingoodfaithbytheirunionpresident
Gastonandtheircounselthattheirmassresignationandretirementwereavalidexerciseof'theirrighttoprotest
the dismissal of Gaston notwithstanding the pendency of their certified dispute in the industrial court, that they
wereassuredbytheirleaderthatitwasalawfulexerciseofconcertedaction,thatthefullconsequencesofsuch
actwerenotexplainedtothembycounselandthattheyhadsoactedunderthreatofexpulsionfromtheunion
(whichappeartobeborneoutbythefactthatwithintheyearafterfinallyappreciatingthefullconsequencesof
their illconceived mass protest reitrement and resignation they sought to withdraw the same and petitioned for
readmissioninlinewiththereturntoworkorders).
TheprincipalgroundfortheCourt'sjudgmentcannotbefaulted,towit,thatsuchactionofmassretirementand
resignationwhichplainlyintendedtoaborttheeffectsoftheindusgtrialcourt'sreturntoworkordersandtoplace
petitionerspilots beyond the court's returntowork orders and to place petitionerspilots beyond the court's
jurisdictional control, after the President had certified the labor dispute thereto for compulsory arbitration in the
publicinterest,couldnotbesanctionednortoleratedsince"clearly,thepowersgiventotheindustrialcourtina
certifiedlabordisputewillbemeaninglessanduselesstopursuewhereitsjurisdictioncannotoperate.2
Still,sincetheindustrialcourtenbancsetasideJudgeParedes'orderstoreceiveproofonthepilots'petitionsfor
reinstatementonthebasisinteraliaoftheGomezfactions'contentionthattheprejudicialquestionofwhoofthe
two faction's contention that the prejudicial question of who of the two factions should prosecute the main case
(thelabordispute)shouldfirstberesolvedinthecertificationcasependingasCaseL33705beforetheisCourt 3
andsincethemattersraisedinthepetitionforreinstatementwerequiteseriousanddidrequiredthesubmissionofproofas
held by Judge Paredes in the December 23, 1971 order, the question of merit of the pilots' rankandfile petitions for
reinstatement could perhaps have been deferred and likewise remanded to the National Labor Relations Commission
since after all their alternative prayer for payment of their claims for retirement or speration pay is being remanded to the
NationalLaborRelationsCommission"todeterminewhethersuchclaimisinorder"byreceivingtheproofoftheparties
andsuchproofcoverstheverysamemattersraisedassupportinggroundsandreasonsinthepetitionsforreinstatment.

After all, if the pilots duly substantiated with convincing proof their allegations in support of their petitions for
reinstatement that they had been misled and/or coerced by their leader and counsel into presenting their mass
retirementandresignationwithoutthefullconsequenceshavingbeenexplainedtothemthepilotswouldbeinthe
same situation of rankandfile members of a union who engage in an illegal strike, in which case under this
Court'sliberalandcompassionatedoctrine,onlytheleaders(andthosewhoactuallyresortedtoviolencewhichis
of no application here) would receive the capital of dismissal unless this Court were somehow to make an
exceptionofthepilotsandexcludethemfromtheapplicationofthisestablisheddoctrinebecause"oftheirhighly
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1977/apr1977/gr_33705_1977.html

9/13

8/29/2016

A.M.No.L33705

advancedtechnicalbackgroundandrelativelybetterlifestatusfarabovethegeneralworkingclassspectrum."
4

Withal, the Court's decision requires the National Labor Relations Commission with reference to the pilots'
alternative claims for retirement or separation pay "to determine whether such claim is in order, particularly in
viewofthecaveatmadebyPAL,inacceptingthepetitioners'individuallettersofretirement/resignation,thatsaid
petitioners shall not be entitled to any benefit or privilege to which they may otherwise be entitled by reason of
their employment with PAL as the former's acts constituted a violation of the order of the industrial court dated
November26,1970."
The said November 26, 1970 order commanded ALPAP members "not to strike or in any way Cause any
stoppage in the operation and service of PAL, under pain of dismissal and forfeiture of rights and privileges
accruingtotheirrespectiveemploymentsshouldtheydisregardthisOrderandPALisalsoorderednottolockout
anyofsuchmembersandofficersofALPAPunderpainofcontemptandcancellationofitsfranchise.
Iventuretosuggestasaspecificguideline 5 for the National Labor Relations Commission's consideration (in order to
expedite settlement of the case and assuage the anxieties of petitioners and their families) that the pending question
appears to be one of law, whose resolution would not be affected by the proof that may be submitted to the said
commissionuponremandofthecase.

The question of law is: was it within the industrial court's power as provided in Judge Paredes' abovequoted
ordertoorder"forfeitureofrightsandprivilegesaccruingtotheirrespectiveemployments"shouldtheydisregard
hisreturntoworkorder?ItshouldbenotedthatthePALinacceptingthelettersofretirement/resignationmade
thecaveatthatthepilotsconcernedwouldforfeitanyretirementbenefitorprivilegethattheywouldotherwisebe
entitledtobyreasonoftheiremploymentwithPAL,astheiractsconstitutedaviolationofthecitedreturntowork
order, thus indicating that were it not for such order, PAL would have no basis for imposing any forfeiture of
earnedretirementprivilegessinceitwasinturnacceptingthepilots'retirementandresignation.
If the industrial court had no such power to order forfeiture of the pilots' retirement/resignation privileges and
benefits for violation of its return to work order, then there would be no legal basis for the denial of such
retirementprivilegesandbenefits.
Thattheindustrialcourthadsuchpowerisopentogravedoubts.Fordisregardandviolationofthereturntowork
order,theindustrialcourtcouldimposethecapitalpenaltyofdismissalfromemployment.True,thepilotscarried
outanadvisedmassretirement/resignationtoaborttheeffectsofthereturntoworkorderbuttheeffectivenessof
thepenaltyofdismissalisborneoutbythefactthatwithintheyearthepilotshadcometorealizeandregretthe
futilityoftheiractandwereseekingreadmissionThenagain,theindustrialCourthadthepowerofcontemptit
couldhavedeclaredthemassretirementillegalasthisCourthasinfactsodeclaredanduseditscoercivepower
ofcontemptunderRule71,section7byrequiringimprisonmentofthepetitionersuntiltheypurgedthemselvesof
contemptbycomplyingwiththereturntoworkorder.
But to declare the forfeiture of retirement privileges and benefits which the petitioners had earned and would
otherwisebeentitledtobyreasonoftheiryearsofemploymentofPALappearstobebeyondthecoerciveaswell
aspunitivepowersoftheindustrialcourtinthesamewaythatisthreatenedcancellationofPAL'sfranchiseas
grantedbyCongressforviolationofthelockoutprohibitionaspectofthesameorderwasbeyonditspowers.
The end result, then, would be that assuming that petitioners had willfully violated the rertuntowork order of
November 26, 1970 and had not ben misled into presenting their mass retirement/resignation, such violation
couldnotlegallyresultinaforfeitureoftheirretirementprvilegesandbenefitsasdecreedintheordersincesuch
forfeiturewasbeyondtheindustrialcourt'spowerandauthorituy.Theirlossofemploymentandthedenialoftheir
readmission certainly constitute sufficient punshment and vindication of the court's authority. All the more so
wouldsuchnonforteitureofearnedreirementprivilegesandbenefitsbeinconsonancewithfairnessandequity
should the pilots duly establish the factual averments of thier cited petition for readmission and for payment of
theirsaidprivilegesandbenefits.

SeparateOpinions
TEEHANKEE,J.,concurring:
InL33705,acertificationproceeding,Iconcurwiththeruling1thatthereisnothinginthelawwhichsupports
respondentcourt'srestrictiveinterpretationthatwouldlimitmembershipinalabororganizationtotheemployeesofa
particularemployer,(forsuchanarchaicviewwouldbepracticallyadeathblowtothecauseofunionismandwould
fragmentunionsintoasmanyemployersthattheremaybe)andthatspecificallyinthecaseofALPAP(AirLinePilots
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1977/apr1977/gr_33705_1977.html

10/13

8/29/2016

A.M.No.L33705

AssociationofthePhilippines)thereisnothinginitsConstitutionandbylawsthatwouldrestrictitsmembershipto
PhilippineAirLines,Inc.(PAL)pilotsalone.(Obviously,theorganizationalsetupwasforALPAPasauniontobecomposed
ofallairlinepilotsinthePhilippinesregardlessofemployer,patternedaftertheALPAP(AirLinePilotsAssociation)inthe
UnitedStateswhichhasareputedmembershipof46,000withlocalsestablishedbythemembersattheirrespective
companiesofemployment).

TheCourtthereforeproperlyupheldtheelectionoftheGastonfactionbyaclearmajorityoftheALPAP
membership(1221outof270)asagainsttheGomezfactionof45membersrecognizedGaston'selectionas
presidentofALPAPasagainsttherumpelectionofGomeztothesamepositionandruledoutrespondentcourt's
actionofauthorizingtheGomezfactiontotakeovertheoffice,fundsandnameofALPAPasagraveabuseof
discretionandanullity.
Ofcourse,onlythepilotsactuallyintheemployofthePALtotheexclusionofthosewhohadresignedorretired
orotherwisebeenseparatedfromitsemploymentcouldtakepartinthePALcertificationelection.Undernormal
circumstances,theALPAPasthedulyorganizedlaborunion(composedofbothfactions)wouldmanageand
administerthecollectivebargainingagreementarrivedatbetweenemployerandemployees.
Butthisdidnotholdtrueinthepresentcase,sinceineffecttheGomezfactionconsistingofpilotswhocontinued
intheemployofPALanddidnotfollowtheactionofthemajoritycomposingtheGastonfactionofresigningand
retiringenmassefromtheiremploymentseparatedthemselvesfromALPAPandweregrantedseparate
recognitionbyPALastheALPAP(Gomez)factionconstitutingtheexclusivecollectivebargainingrepresentation
forthepilotswhocontinuedinitsemploy,TheoriginalunionALPAPasheadedbyGastononconcedesthisand
makesitquiteclearinitsbriefthatitdoesnotquestiontherecognitionextendedbyPALtotheGomezfactionnor
thelatter'srighttomanageandadministerthecollectivebargainingagreementandtonegotiateandconclude
anyothercollectivebargainingagreementwithPAL.
TheactualdisputewasthusreducedtowhethertheGomezfactioninseparatingthemselvesfromALPAPas
headedbyGastoncouldtakeoverandappropriatethecorporatename,officeandfundsofALPAP,asauthorized
byrespondentcourt.
SuchtakeoverorappropriationofALPAPbytheGomezfactioncouldnotbevalidlydonenorauthorizedby
respondentcourt,asnowruledbythisCourt.ButsinceALPAPdoesrecognizetherightoftheGomezfactionto
separateandsecedefromALPAPandforthemembersoftheGomezfactioncomposedofpilotswhohave
remainedintheemployofPALtoformtheirownunion,theCourt'sjudgmenthasorderedALPAPasheadedby
Gastonastherecognizedpresidentthereoforhisdulyelectedsuccessortogivetoanywithdrawingmemberi.e.
themembersoftheGomezfaction"whateverright.interestorparticipationsuchmembermayhaveintheassets,
includingcashfundsofALPAPasaresultofhismembershipinthatassociation."
ItakethistomeanthatALPAPistherebyorderedtoliquidatethemembershipofeachwithdrawingmember
althoughALPAPisanonstockassociation)andgivehimtheequivalentofthenetbookvalueincashofhis
aliquotshareinthenetassetofALPAPasofthedateofwithdrawalofdefactooftheGomezfactionwhichmay
befixedasDecember23,1970,thelatewhenBenHurGomezwaselectedaspresidentofhisfactionbyALPAP
memberswhodidnojointhemassresignationofretirement,IbelievethatinfairnesstheEquivalentvalueofany
usemadebytheGomezfactionoftheALPAPofficeandfundsfromandaftertheirdateofwithdrawal(which
obviouslywasinandfortheirownexclusiveinterestandbenefit)shouldinturnbeoffsetagainstwhatevermaybe
determinedtobethecollectivevalueoftheirALPAPmembershipasofthedateoftheirwithdrawalonDecember
23,1970.
InL35206,thejudgmentpennedbytheChiefJusticerejectsthepetitionerspilots'petitionforreadmissiontoPAL
andtheirroundsinsupportthereof,interalia,thattheywereledtobelieveingoodfaithbytheirunionpresident
Gastonandtheircounselthattheirmassresignationandretirementwereavalidexerciseof'theirrighttoprotest
thedismissalofGastonnotwithstandingthependencyoftheircertifieddisputeintheindustrialcourt,thatthey
wereassuredbytheirleaderthatitwasalawfulexerciseofconcertedaction,thatthefullconsequencesofsuch
actwerenotexplainedtothembycounselandthattheyhadsoactedunderthreatofexpulsionfromtheunion
(whichappeartobeborneoutbythefactthatwithintheyearafterfinallyappreciatingthefullconsequencesof
theirillconceivedmassprotestreitrementandresignationtheysoughttowithdrawthesameandpetitionedfor
readmissioninlinewiththereturntoworkorders).
TheprincipalgroundfortheCourt'sjudgmentcannotbefaulted,towit,thatsuchactionofmassretirementand
resignationwhichplainlyintendedtoaborttheeffectsoftheindusgtrialcourt'sreturntoworkordersandtoplace
petitionerspilotsbeyondthecourt'sreturntoworkordersandtoplacepetitionerspilotsbeyondthecourt's
jurisdictionalcontrol,afterthePresidenthadcertifiedthelabordisputetheretoforcompulsoryarbitrationinthe
publicinterest,couldnotbesanctionednortoleratedsince"clearly,thepowersgiventotheindustrialcourtina
certifiedlabordisputewillbemeaninglessanduselesstopursuewhereitsjurisdictioncannotoperate.2
Still,sincetheindustrialcourtenbancsetasideJudgeParedes'orderstoreceiveproofonthepilots'petitionsfor
reinstatementonthebasisinteraliaoftheGomezfactions'contentionthattheprejudicialquestionofwhoofthe
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1977/apr1977/gr_33705_1977.html

11/13

8/29/2016

A.M.No.L33705

twofaction'scontentionthattheprejudicialquestionofwhoofthetwofactionsshouldprosecutethemaincase
(thelabordispute)shouldfirstberesolvedinthecertificationcasependingasCaseL33705beforetheisCourt3
andsincethemattersraisedinthepetitionforreinstatementwerequiteseriousanddidrequiredthesubmissionofproofas
heldbyJudgeParedesintheDecember23,1971order,thequestionofmeritofthepilots'rankandfilepetitionsfor
reinstatementcouldperhapshavebeendeferredandlikewiseremandedtotheNationalLaborRelationsCommission
sinceafteralltheiralternativeprayerforpaymentoftheirclaimsforretirementorsperationpayisbeingremandedtothe
NationalLaborRelationsCommission"todeterminewhethersuchclaimisinorder"byreceivingtheproofoftheparties
andsuchproofcoverstheverysamemattersraisedassupportinggroundsandreasonsinthepetitionsforreinstatment.

Afterall,ifthepilotsdulysubstantiatedwithconvincingprooftheirallegationsinsupportoftheirpetitionsfor
reinstatementthattheyhadbeenmisledand/orcoercedbytheirleaderandcounselintopresentingtheirmass
retirementandresignationwithoutthefullconsequenceshavingbeenexplainedtothemthepilotswouldbeinthe
samesituationofrankandfilemembersofaunionwhoengageinanillegalstrike,inwhichcaseunderthis
Court'sliberalandcompassionatedoctrine,onlytheleaders(andthosewhoactuallyresortedtoviolencewhichis
ofnoapplicationhere)wouldreceivethecapitalofdismissalunlessthisCourtweresomehowtomakean
exceptionofthepilotsandexcludethemfromtheapplicationofthisestablisheddoctrinebecause"oftheirhighly
advancedtechnicalbackgroundandrelativelybetterlifestatusfarabovethegeneralworkingclassspectrum."
4

Withal,theCourt'sdecisionrequirestheNationalLaborRelationsCommissionwithreferencetothepilots'
alternativeclaimsforretirementorseparationpay"todeterminewhethersuchclaimisinorder,particularlyin
viewofthecaveatmadebyPAL,inacceptingthepetitioners'individuallettersofretirement/resignation,thatsaid
petitionersshallnotbeentitledtoanybenefitorprivilegetowhichtheymayotherwisebeentitledbyreasonof
theiremploymentwithPALastheformer'sactsconstitutedaviolationoftheorderoftheindustrialcourtdated
November26,1970."
ThesaidNovember26,1970ordercommandedALPAPmembers"nottostrikeorinanywayCauseany
stoppageintheoperationandserviceofPAL,underpainofdismissalandforfeitureofrightsandprivileges
accruingtotheirrespectiveemploymentsshouldtheydisregardthisOrderandPALisalsoorderednottolockout
anyofsuchmembersandofficersofALPAPunderpainofcontemptandcancellationofitsfranchise.
Iventuretosuggestasaspecificguideline5fortheNationalLaborRelationsCommission'sconsideration(inorderto
expeditesettlementofthecaseandassuagetheanxietiesofpetitionersandtheirfamilies)thatthependingquestion
appearstobeoneoflaw,whoseresolutionwouldnotbeaffectedbytheproofthatmaybesubmittedtothesaid
commissionuponremandofthecase.

Thequestionoflawis:wasitwithintheindustrialcourt'spowerasprovidedinJudgeParedes'abovequoted
ordertoorder"forfeitureofrightsandprivilegesaccruingtotheirrespectiveemployments"shouldtheydisregard
hisreturntoworkorder?ItshouldbenotedthatthePALinacceptingthelettersofretirement/resignationmade
thecaveatthatthepilotsconcernedwouldforfeitanyretirementbenefitorprivilegethattheywouldotherwisebe
entitledtobyreasonoftheiremploymentwithPAL,astheiractsconstitutedaviolationofthecitedreturntowork
order,thusindicatingthatwereitnotforsuchorder,PALwouldhavenobasisforimposinganyforfeitureof
earnedretirementprivilegessinceitwasinturnacceptingthepilots'retirementandresignation.
Iftheindustrialcourthadnosuchpowertoorderforfeitureofthepilots'retirement/resignationprivilegesand
benefitsforviolationofitsreturntoworkorder,thentherewouldbenolegalbasisforthedenialofsuch
retirementprivilegesandbenefits.
Thattheindustrialcourthadsuchpowerisopentogravedoubts.Fordisregardandviolationofthereturntowork
order,theindustrialcourtcouldimposethecapitalpenaltyofdismissalfromemployment.True,thepilotscarried
outanadvisedmassretirement/resignationtoaborttheeffectsofthereturntoworkorderbuttheeffectivenessof
thepenaltyofdismissalisborneoutbythefactthatwithintheyearthepilotshadcometorealizeandregretthe
futilityoftheiractandwereseekingreadmissionThenagain,theindustrialCourthadthepowerofcontemptit
couldhavedeclaredthemassretirementillegalasthisCourthasinfactsodeclaredanduseditscoercivepower
ofcontemptunderRule71,section7byrequiringimprisonmentofthepetitionersuntiltheypurgedthemselvesof
contemptbycomplyingwiththereturntoworkorder.
Buttodeclaretheforfeitureofretirementprivilegesandbenefitswhichthepetitionershadearnedandwould
otherwisebeentitledtobyreasonoftheiryearsofemploymentofPALappearstobebeyondthecoerciveaswell
aspunitivepowersoftheindustrialcourtinthesamewaythatisthreatenedcancellationofPAL'sfranchiseas
grantedbyCongressforviolationofthelockoutprohibitionaspectofthesameorderwasbeyonditspowers.
Theendresult,then,wouldbethatassumingthatpetitionershadwillfullyviolatedtherertuntoworkorderof
November26,1970andhadnotbenmisledintopresentingtheirmassretirement/resignation,suchviolation
couldnotlegallyresultinaforfeitureoftheirretirementprvilegesandbenefitsasdecreedintheordersincesuch
forfeiturewasbeyondtheindustrialcourt'spowerandauthorituy.Theirlossofemploymentandthedenialoftheir
readmissioncertainlyconstitutesufficientpunshmentandvindicationofthecourt'sauthority.Allthemoreso
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1977/apr1977/gr_33705_1977.html

12/13

8/29/2016

A.M.No.L33705

wouldsuchnonforteitureofearnedreirementprivilegesandbenefitsbeinconsonancewithfairnessandequity
shouldthepilotsdulyestablishthefactualavermentsofthiercitedpetitionforreadmissionandforpaymentof
theirsaidprivilegesandbenefits.
Footnotes
1Atpage14,decision.
2Atpage17,decision.
3Atpage11,decision.
4Atpage18,decision.
5Seealsowriter'ssuggestedguidelinesinhisseparateopinioninPCIBvs.Escolinin,56SCRA266,
405(1974)and67SCRA202,204(Sept.30,1975)reResolutiononmotionsforreconsideration.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1977/apr1977/gr_33705_1977.html

13/13