Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. NLRC Facts
Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. NLRC Facts
120567, March 20, 1998 The petition for injunction directly filed
Philippine Airlines, Inc. before the NLRC is in reality an action for illegal
vs. dismissal. Thus, the NLRC exceeded its jurisdiction
NLRC when it issued the assailed Order granting private
respondents' petition for injunction and ordering the
Facts: petitioner to reinstate private respondents.
Private respondents are flight stewards of
PAL who were dismissed from the service for their
alleged involvement in the currency smuggling in
Hong Kong.
Aggrieved by the said dismissal, private
respondents filed with the NLRC a petition for
injunction. The NLRC issued a temporary
mandatory injunction enjoining petitioner to cease
and desist from enforcing its Memorandum of
dismissal.
In support of the issuance of the writ of
temporary injunction, the NLRC adopted the view
that:
(1) private respondents cannot be validly dismissed
on the strength of petitioner's Code of Discipline
which was declared illegal by this Court for the
reason that it was formulated by the petitioner
without the participation of its employees
(2) the whimsical, baseless and premature
dismissals of private respondents which "caused
them grave and irreparable injury" is enjoinable as
private respondents are left "with no speedy and
adequate remedy at law' except the issuance of a
temporary mandatory injunction
Issue:
Whether or not the grant of injunction was
proper.
Ruling:
No.
It is an essential requirement that there
must first be a labor dispute between the
contending parties before the labor arbiter.
In the present case, there is no labor
dispute between the petitioner and private
respondents as there has yet been no complaint for
illegal dismissal filed with the labor arbiter by the
private respondents against the petitioner.
Republic of the Philippines ordering respondent to reinstate
SUPREME COURT petitioners to their former positions
Manila pending the hearing of this case, or,
prohibiting respondent from enforcing
SECOND DIVISION its Decision dated February 22, 1995
while this case is pending
adjudication;
G.R. No. 120567 March 20, 1998 III. After hearing, that the writ of
preliminary injunction as to the reliefs
sought for be made permanent, that
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., petitioner,
petitioners be awarded full
vs.
backwages, moral damages of PHP
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION,
500,000.00 each and exemplary
FERDINAND PINEDA and GOGFREDO
damages of PHP 500,000.00 each,
CABLING, respondents.
attorney's fees equivalent to ten
percent of whatever amount is
awarded, and the costs of suit.
Can the National Labor Relations Commission and desist from enforcing its February 22, 1995
(NLRC), even without a complaint for illegal dismissal Memorandum of dismissal. In granting the writ, the
tiled before the labor arbiter, entertain an action for NLRC considered the following facts, to wit:
injunction and issue such writ enjoining petitioner
Philippine Airlines, inc. from enforcing its Orders of . . . that almost two (2) years ago, i.e.
dismissal against private respondents, and ordering on April 15, 1993, the petitioners were
petitioner to reinstate the private respondents to their instructed to attend an investigation by
previous positions? respondent's "Security and Fraud
Prevention Sub-Department"
This is the pivotal issue presented before us in this regarding an April 3, 1993 incident in
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Hongkong at which Joseph Abaca,
Rules of Court which seeks the nullification of the respondent's Avionics Mechanic in
injunctive writ dated April 3, 1995 issued by the NLRC Hongkong "was intercepted by the
and the Order denying petitioner's motion for Hongkong Airport Police at Gate
reconsideration on the ground that the said Orders 05 . . . the ramp area of the Kai Tak
were issued in excess of jurisdiction. International Airport while . . . about to
exit said gate carrying a . . . bag said
Private respondents are flight stewards of the to contain some 2.5 million pesos in
petitioner. Both were dismissed from the service for Philippine Currencies. That at the
their alleged involvement in the April 3, 1993 currency Police Station. Mr. Abaca claimed that
smuggling in Hong Kong. he just found said plastic bag at the
Skybed Section of the arrival flight
Aggrieved by said dismissal, private respondents filed PR300/03 April 93," where petitioners
with the NLRC a petition for injunction praying that:
1 served as flight stewards of said flight
PR300; . . the petitioners sought "a
I. Upon filing of this Petition, a more detailed account of what this
temporary restraining order be issued, HKG incident is all about"; but instead,
prohibiting respondents (petitioner the petitioners were administratively
herein) from effecting or enforcing the charged, "a hearing" on which "did
Decision dated Feb. 22, 1995, or to not push through" until almost two (2)
reinstate petitioners temporarily while years after, i.e, "on January 20, 1995 .
a hearing on the propriety of the . . where a confrontation between Mr.
issuance of a writ of preliminary Abaca and petitioners herein was
injunction is being undertaken; compulsorily arranged by the
respondent's disciplinary board" at
II. After hearing, a writ of preliminary which hearing, Abaca was made to
mandatory injunction be issued identify petitioners as co-conspirators;
that despite the fact that the procedure
of identification adopted by respondents cannot be validly dismissed on the
respondent's Disciplinary Board was strength of petitioner's Code of Discipline which was
anomalous "as there was no one else declared illegal by this Court in the ease at PAL,
in the line-up (which could not be Inc. vs. NLRC, (G.R. No. 85985), promulgated August
called one) but petitioners . . . Joseph 13, 1993, for the reason that it was formulated by the
Abaca still had difficulty in identifying petitioner without the participation of its employees as
petitioner Pineda as his co- required in R.A. 6715, amending Article 211 of the
conspirator, and as to petitioner Labor Code; (2) the whimsical, baseless and
Cabling, he was implicated and premature dismissals of private respondents which
pointed by Abaca only after "caused them grave and irreparable injury" is
respondent's Atty. Cabatuando enjoinable as private respondents are left "with no
pressed the former to identify speedy and adequate remedy at law" except the
petitioner Cabling as co-conspirator"; issuance of a temporary mandatory injunction; (3) the
that with the hearing reset to January NLRC is empowered under Article 218 (e) of the
25, 1995, "Mr. Joseph Abaca finally Labor Code not only to restrain any actual or
gave exculpating statements to the threatened commission of any or all prohibited or
board in that he cleared petitioners unlawful acts but also to require the performance of a
from any participation or from being particular act in any labor dispute, which, if not
the owners of the currencies, and at restrained or performed forthwith, may cause grave or
which hearing Mr. Joseph Abaca irreparable damage to any party; and (4) the
volunteered the information that the temporary power of the NLRC was recognized by this
real owner of said money was one Court in the case of Chemo-Technische Mfg.,
who frequented his headquarters in Inc. Employees Union, DFA, et. al. vs. Chemo-
Hongkong to which information, the Technische Mfg., Inc. [G.R. No. 107031, January 25,
Disciplinary Board Chairman, Mr. 1993].
Ismael Khan," opined "for the need for
another hearing to go to the bottom of On May 4, 1995, petitioner moved for
the incident"; that from said statement, reconsideration arguing that the NLRC erred:
3
is also a special equitable relief granted only in cases The term "labor dispute" is defined as "any
where there is no plain, adequate and complete controversy or matter concerning terms and
remedy at law. 6
conditions of employment or the association or
representation of persons in negotiating, fixing.
In labor cases, Article 218 of the Labor Code maintaining, changing, or arranging the terms and
empowers the NLRC — conditions of employment regardless of whether or
not the disputants stand in the proximate relation of
employers and employees." 8
The term "controversy" is likewise defined as involving the legality of
"a litigated question; adversary proceeding in a court strikes and lockouts;
of law; a civil action or suit, either at law or in equity; a and
justiciable dispute."9
On the other hand, the NLRC shall have there is no standard by which their amount can be
exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided measured with reasonable accuracy, that is, it is
by labor arbiters as provided in Article 217(b) of the not susceptible of mathematical computation. It is
Labor Code. In short, the jurisdiction of the NLRC in considered irreparable injury when it cannot be
illegal dismissal cases is appellate in nature and, adequately compensated in damages due to the
therefore, it cannot entertain the private respondents' nature of the injury itself or the nature of the right
petition for injunction which challenges the dismissal or property injured or when there exists no certain
orders of petitioner. Article 218(e) of the Labor Code pecuniary standard for the measurement of
does not provide blanket authority to the NLRC or any damages. 19
SO ORDERED.