|
JUANITO A. GARCIA and ALBERTO J. DUMAGO, Petitioners, |
G.R. No. 164856
Present: |
|
- versus - PHILIPPINE
AIRLINES, INC., Respondent. |
Quisumbing,
J., Chairperson, Carpio, Carpio
Morales, Tinga, and VELASCO, JR., JJ.
Promulgated: August 29, 2007 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
QUISUMBING,
J.:
This petition for review assails both the Decision[1] dated December 5,
2003 and the Resolution[2] dated April 16,
2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 69540, which had annulled the Resolutions[3] dated November 26,
2001 and January 28, 2002 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in
NLRC Injunction Case No. 0001038-01, and also denied the motion for
reconsideration, respectively.
The antecedent facts of the case are as follows:
Petitioners Alberto J. Dumago and Juanito A. Garcia were employed
by respondent Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) as Aircraft Furnishers Master “C”
and Aircraft Inspector, respectively.
They were assigned in the
On
On
Petitioners vehemently denied the allegations and challenged
PAL to show proof that they were indeed “caught in the act of sniffing shabu.” Dumago
claimed that he was in the Toolroom Section to request for an allen wrench to fix the needles of
the sewing and zigzagger machines. Garcia averred he was in the Toolroom
Section to inquire where he could take the Trackster’s
tire for vulcanizing.
On
In the meantime, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
placed PAL under an Interim Rehabilitation Receiver due to severe financial
losses.
On
WHEREFORE,
conformably with the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding the
respondents guilty of illegal suspension and illegal dismissal and ordering
them to reinstate complainants to their former position without loss of
seniority rights and other privileges. Respondents are hereby further ordered
to pay jointly and severally unto the complainants the following:
Alberto J. Dumago - P409,500.00
backwages as of
34,125.00 for
13th month pay
Juanito
A. Garcia - P1,290,744.00
backwages as of
107,562.00 for
13th month pay
The amounts of P100,000.00 and
P50,000.00 to each complainant as and by way of moral and exemplary damages;
and
The sum equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total award as and for
attorneys fees.
Respondents are directed to immediately comply with the
reinstatement aspect of this Decision. However, in the event that reinstatement
is no longer feasible, respondent[s] are hereby ordered, in lieu thereof, to
pay unto the complainants their separation pay computed at one month for [e]very
year of service.
SO ORDERED.[7]
Meanwhile, the SEC replaced the Interim Rehabilitation
Receiver with a Permanent Rehabilitation Receiver.
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision and
dismissed the case for lack of merit.[8] Reconsideration
having been denied, an Entry of Judgment[9] was issued on July
13, 2000.
On
x x x x
1.
To the Office of
respondent PAL Building I, Legaspi St., Legaspi Village, Makati City or to any
of its Offices in the Philippines and cause reinstatement of complainants to
their former position and to cause the collection of the amount of [P]549,309.60
from respondent PAL representing the backwages of said complainants on the
reinstatement aspect;
2.
In case you
cannot collect from respondent PAL for any reason, you shall levy on the office
equipment and other movables and garnish its deposits with any bank in the P]549,309.60. If still insufficient,
levy against immovable properties of PAL not otherwise exempt from execution.
x x x x[11]
Although PAL filed an Urgent Motion to Quash Writ of
Execution, the Labor Arbiter issued a Notice of Garnishment[12] addressed to the
President/Manager of the Allied Bank Head Office in P549,309.60.
PAL moved to lift the Notice of Garnishment while petitioners
moved for the release of the garnished amount. PAL opposed petitioners’ motion.
It also filed an Urgent Petition for Injunction which the NLRC resolved as
follows:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Petition is partially GRANTED. Accordingly, the Writ
of Execution dated
SO ORDERED.[13]
PAL appealed to the Court of Appeals on the grounds that: (1)
by declaring the writ of execution and the notice of garnishment valid, the
NLRC gave petitioners undue advantage and preference over PAL’s other creditors
and hampered the task of the Permanent Rehabilitation Receiver; and (2) there
was no longer any legal or factual basis to reinstate petitioners as a result
of the reversal by the NLRC of the Labor Arbiter’s decision.
The appellate court ruled that the Labor Arbiter issued the
writ of execution and the notice of garnishment without jurisdiction. Hence, the
NLRC erred in upholding its validity. Since PAL was under receivership, it
could not have possibly reinstated petitioners due to retrenchment and
cash-flow constraints. The appellate court declared that a stay of execution
may be warranted by the fact that PAL was under rehabilitation receivership.
The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered and in view of the foregoing, the instant
petition is hereby GIVEN DUE COURSE. The assailed November 26, 2001
Resolution, as well as the January 28, 2002 Resolution of public respondent
National Labor Relations Commission is hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE for
having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction. Consequently, the Writ of Execution and the Notice of
Garnishment issued by the Labor Arbiter are hereby likewise ANNULLED and
SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.[14]
Hence, the instant petition raising a single issue as follows:
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF
APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR ACCRUED
WAGES DURING THE PENDENCY OF PAL’S APPEAL.[15]
Simply put, however, there are really two issues for our
consideration: (1) Are petitioners entitled to their wages during the pendency
of PAL’s appeal to the NLRC? and (2) In the light of new developments
concerning PAL’s rehabilitation, are petitioners
entitled to execution of the Labor Arbiter’s order of reinstatement even if PAL
is under receivership?
We shall first resolve the issue of whether the execution of the
Labor Arbiter’s order is legally possible even if PAL is under receivership.
We note that during the pendency of
this case, PAL was placed by the SEC first, under an Interim Rehabilitation
Receiver and finally, under a Permanent Rehabilitation Receiver. The pertinent
law on this matter, Section 5(d) of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 902-A, as
amended, provides that:
SECTION 5. In addition to the regulatory and adjudicative
functions of the Securities and Exchange Commission over corporations,
partnerships and other forms of associations registered with it as expressly
granted under existing laws and decrees, it shall have original and exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving:
x x x x
d) Petitions
of corporations, partnerships or associations to be declared in the state of
suspension of payments in cases where the corporation, partnership or
association possesses property to cover all of its debts but foresees the
impossibility of meeting them when they respectively fall due or in cases where
the corporation, partnership or association has no sufficient assets to cover
its liabilities, but is under the [management of a rehabilitation receiver or] Management
Committee created pursuant to this Decree.
The same P.D., in Section 6(c) provides that:
SECTION 6. In order to effectively exercise such
jurisdiction, the Commission shall possess the following powers:
x x x x
c) To appoint
one or more receivers of the property, real or personal, which is the subject
of the action pending before the Commission in accordance with the pertinent
provisions of the Rules of Court in such other cases whenever necessary in
order to preserve the rights of the parties-litigants and/or protect the
interest of the investing public and creditors:…Provided, finally, That
upon appointment of a management committee, rehabilitation receiver, board or
body, pursuant to this Decree, all actions for claims against corporations,
partnerships or associations under management or receivership pending before
any court, tribunal, board or body shall be suspended accordingly.
x x x
x
Worth stressing, upon appointment by the SEC of a
rehabilitation receiver, all actions for claims against the corporation pending
before any court, tribunal or board shall ipso
jure be suspended. The purpose of the
automatic stay of all pending actions for claims is to enable the
rehabilitation receiver to effectively exercise its/his powers free from any
judicial or extra-judicial interference that might unduly hinder or prevent the
rescue of the corporation.[16]
More importantly, the suspension of all actions for claims
against the corporation embraces all phases of the suit, be it before the trial
court or any tribunal or before this Court.[17] No other action
may be taken, including the rendition of judgment during the state of
suspension. It must be stressed that what are automatically stayed or suspended
are the proceedings of a suit and not just the payment of claims during the
execution stage after the case had become final and executory.[18]
Furthermore, the actions that are suspended cover all claims
against the corporation whether for damages founded on a breach of contract of
carriage, labor cases, collection suits or any other claims of a pecuniary
nature.[19] No exception in
favor of labor claims is mentioned in the law.[20]
This Court’s adherence to the
above-stated rule has been resolute and steadfast as evidenced by its
oft-repeated application in a plethora of cases involving PAL, the most recent
of which is Philippine Airlines, Inc. v.
Zamora.[21]
Since petitioners’ claim against PAL is a money claim for
their wages during the pendency of PAL’s appeal to the NLRC, the same should
have been suspended pending the rehabilitation proceedings. The Labor Arbiter,
the NLRC, as well as the Court of Appeals should have abstained from resolving
petitioners’ case for illegal dismissal and should instead have directed them
to lodge their claim before PAL’s receiver.[22]
However, to still require petitioners at this time to re-file
their labor claim against PAL under the peculiar circumstances of the case –
that their dismissal was eventually held valid with only the matter of
reinstatement pending appeal being the issue – this Court deems it legally expedient
to suspend the proceedings in this case.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED in that the instant proceedings
herein are SUSPENDED until further
notice from this Court. Accordingly, respondent Philippine Airlines, Inc.
is hereby DIRECTED to quarterly update the Court as to the status of its
ongoing rehabilitation. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
WE CONCUR:
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
|
A T T E S T A T I O N
I
attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice Chairperson |
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
|
|
REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice |
[1] Rollo, pp. 38-48. Penned by Associate Justice Sergio L. Pestaño, with Associate Justices Marina L. Buzon and Jose C. Mendoza concurring.
[2]
[3] CA rollo, pp. 15-21 and 24-26.
[4] Records, Vol. I, pp. 30-31.
[5] Id. at 32-33.
[6] Id. at 160-167.
[7] Id. at 167.
[8] Id. at 174-186.
[9] Id. at 209-210.
[10] CA rollo, pp. 57-61.
[11]
[12]
[13] Id. at 21.
[14] Rollo, pp. 47-48.
[15] Id. at 219.
[16] Rubberworld (Phils.),
Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 126773,
[17] Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Zamora, G.R. No. 166996, February 6, 2007, p. 20.
[18] Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123238, July 11, 2005, p. 11.
[19] Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Zamora, supra note 17.
[20] Rubberworld (Phils.), Inc. v. NLRC, supra at 729.
[21] Supra note 17.
[22] Clarion Printing House, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 148372, June 27, 2005, 461 SCRA 272, 296.