Re: Application for Optional Retirement Under Republic Act No.

910, As Amended By Republic

Act No. 5095 And Republic Act No. 9946, Of Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr.

Martires, J. (En Banc)

Doctrine: In sum, a justice or judge who retires optionally, just like Justice Villarama, is entitled
to the tacking of leave credits provided in A.C. No. 58- 2003 for the purpose of computing the
longevity pay as granted in Section 42 of B.P. 129; likewise, a fraction of the unexpired five-year
period immediately prior to retirement is with sufficient basis. Lastly, service as bar examiner by
a member of the judiciary is not to be factored in computing longevity pay.

Facts:
Justice Austria-Martinez, also a former member of this Court who was to retire optionally,
requested that the tacking of leave credits under A.C. No. 58-2003 be applied in her favor. The
Court, in a resolution dated 24 February 2009, approved the request of Justice Austria-Martinez
but with a qualification that the ruling be only pro hac vice. Like Justice Austria-Martinez (A.C.
No. 58-2003), Justice Villarama also applied for optional retirement. The former was allowed the
service as bar examiner be credited as part of government service and be tacked in the
computation of the longevity pay upon compulsory or optional retirement. Justice Villarama
prays that, in the light of his attendant circumstances, A.C. No. 58-2003 should be applied to
him, pro hac vice. The committee believes that the pro hac vice ruling in the case of Justice
Austria-Martinez cannot be considered a precedent to be applied in subsequent cases as in the
case of Justice Villarama. What we have forged today henceforth lays a precedent. Members of
the judiciary who are similarly situated can find doctrinal value in this decision.
ROLANDO DE ROCA, petitioner, vs. EDUARDO C. DABUYAN, JENNIFER A. BRANZUELA, JENNYLYN
A. RICARTE, and HERMINIGILDO F. SABANATE, respondents.

Del Castillo, J.

[G.R. No. 215281. March 5, 2018.]

Doctrine: The lessor of a hotel is not a party to a contract of employment between the lessee of a hotel
and its employees just because the lessee decided to continue operating the hotel using the original
name.

Respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against RAF Mansion Hotel Old Management and
New Management and Victoriano Ewayan. Later, private respondents amended the complaint and
included petitioner Rolando De Roca as [co]-respondent. Petitioner filed his motion to dismiss on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction. He alleged that, while he was the owner of RAF Mansion Hotel building,
the same was leased by Victoriano Ewayan,the owner of Oceanics Travel and Tour Agency. Petitioner
claims that Ewayan was the employer of private respondents. Thus, there was no employer-employee
relationship between him and private respondents and the labor arbiter had no jurisdiction. The
contract of employment between respondents, on the one hand, and Oceanic and Ewayan on the
other, is effective only between them; it does not extend to petitioner, who is not a party thereto. It
would appear from the facts on record and the evidence that petitioner's building was an existing hotel
called the "RAF Mansion Hotel," which Oceanic agreed to continue to operate under the same name.
There is no connection between petitioner and Oceanic other than through the lease agreement
executed by them; they are not partners in the operation of RAF Mansion Hotel. It just so happens that
Oceanic decided to continue operating the hotel using the original name — "RAF Mansion Hotel."
FLIGHT ATTENDANTS AND STEWARDS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (FASAP), petitioner, vs.
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., PATRIA CHIONG and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

[A.M. No. 11-10-1-SC. March 13, 2018.]

IN RE: LETTERS OF ATTY . ESTELITO P. MENDOZA RE: G.R. NO. 178083 — FLIGHT ATTENDANTS
AND STEWARDS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (FASAP) vs. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., ET A

Doctrine: In determining the validity of a retrenchment, judicial notice may be taken of the financial
losses incurred by an employer undergoing corporate rehabilitation. In such a case, the presentation of
audited financial statements may not be necessary to establish that the employer is suffering from
severe financial losses.

Philippine Airlines (PAL) was found guilty of unlawful retrenchment by the 3rd division of the SC
reversing the decision of the CA. The court promulgated its decision finding the retrenchment unlawful
for failing to prove that PAL is under serious financial losses and that it considered other ways of cost
cutting aside from retrenchment. Over 1400 flight attendants were retrenched due to the retrenchment
program adopted by PAL. WON PAL is guilty of unlawful retrenchment – NO. The main contention of
FASAP is that PAL failed to establish that it is under serious financial losses because it failed to present
financial reports during the trial to establish such fact. The court ruled that the presentation of financial
reports can be dispensed with in this case because of the judicial admissions made by FASAP in its
pleadings and during the trial. They specifically recognized that PAL is under serious financial losses
and presentation of evidence is not needed anymore because of the judicial admission made by FASAP.
The court in this case may also take judicial notice of the fact that PAL is under serious financial
problem considering the circumstance like the asian financial crisis. There is proof that the liabilities of
PAL is greater than their assets which also justifies the receivership program entered into by PAL to
save the company. Even President Estrada helped the company to survive the financial problems
because it is the flag carrier of the country. PAL is also not in bad faith and it used a fair and reasonable
criteria in implementing the retrenchment program. This is evidenced by the letters sent by PAL to
FASAP to discuss the retrenchment program and how will it be implemented. Some criteria used by
PAL are; excess sick leaves, previous service of suspension orders, passenger complains, tardiness, etc.