Tolentino v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.

G.R. 218984 – January 24, 2018

J. Carpio

Topic: Union Concerted Activities – Strike – Test of Illegality – Illegal Strikes – Knowingly defying an RTC Order
Doctrine: An employee who defies a return-to-work order issued by the SOLE is deemed to have committed an illegal act
which is a just case to dismiss the employee under Art. 282 of the LC

Petitioners: Armando Tolentino (Deceased), represented by his surviving spouse Merla Tolentino and children
Respondents: Philippine Airlines Inc.

Case Summary: Armando Tolentino was one of many pilots who joined a strike against Philippine Airlines on
June 5, 1998. Said strike was rendered illegal and all pilots were given a return-to-work order. The pilots including
Tolentino did not return to work until June 26 of the same year. The pilots were refused by PAL, and were told that
they were terminated. Tolentino then reapplied for the same position but as a new hire. Less than a year after, he
resigned and worked for a different airline. Upon returning to the Philippines, he asked PAL for his retirement
benefits for having worked for the company from 1971-1999. PAL refused. The SC sided with PAL saying that
when he committed illegal acts such as defying the return-to-work order of the SOLE, he committed acts which
would be a just cause to dismiss him. Therefore, when he reapplied in 1999, he was a new hire or a new employee
– not eligible for the retirement benefits given by the airline. The employee must have worked for PAL for 5
continuous years to be eligible.

Facts:
 October 22, 1971: Tolentino was hired by Philippine Airlines as a flight engineer
 July 16, 1999: Tolentino was already an A340/330 Captain
o As a pilot, Tolentino was a member of the Airline Pilots Association of the Philippines (ALPAP),
which had a CBA with PAL
 June 5, 1998: ALPAP members went on strike
 June 7, 1998: the SOLE issued an Order requiring all striking officers and members of ALPAP to return to work
within 24 hours from receipt of Order and requiring PAL to accept the employees under the same terms and
conditions
o Union officers and members had until June 9 to comply, but some pilots – including Tolentino,
continued to participate in the strike
 June 26, 1998: Tolentino and other striking pilots returned to work  PAL refused to readmit these returning
pilots
o The pilots filed a complaint for illegal lockout
 July 20, 1998: Tolentino reapplied for employment with PAL as a newly hired pilot, and then went under a
voluntary 6-month probationary period
o After less than a year, he tendered his resignation
 June 1, 1999: SOLE issued a Resolution that the strike conducted by ALPAP on June 5, 1998 was illegal for
being procedurally infirm and in open defiance of the return-to-work order of June 7, 1998
o Members and officers of ALPAP who participated in said strike were declared to have lost their
employment status
 This decision was affirmed by the SC on April 10, 2002
 While proceedings were ongoing for the first case, Tolentino worked for a foreign airline, and thereafter returned
to the Philippines
o Upon return to the Philippines, Tolentino informed PAL of his intention to collect separation and/or
retirement benefits under the CBA
 PAL refused  Tolentino filed a complaint against PAL for non-payment of holiday pay, rest
day pay, separation pay, and retirement benefits with prayer for damages and attorney’s fees
 Labor Arbiter: Dismissed the complaint of Tolentino
o Tolentino NOT entitled to separation pay and other benefits as he was NOT illegally dismissed
o The LA also denied the claim for retirement benefits because Tolentino resigned from work less than a
year after he was rehired by PAL
 NLRC: Affirmed the decision of the LA
 CA: CA affirmed with modification  the CA found that under the CBA, Tolentino was entitled to the
payment of his vacation time and days off earned but not taken
o Tolentino has rendered 25 continuous years of service to PAL, hence he is entitled to 27 calendar days
of paid annual vacation leave
  Both parties filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration:
o Tolentino: I am entitled to (1) retirement benefits under the CBA; (2) the return of his equity in the
retirement fund under the PAL Pilot’s Retirement Benefit Plan; and (3) the payment of moral and
exemplary damages and attorney’s fees
o PAL: Tolentino is NOT entitled to supposed accrued vacation leave considering (1) the payment of his
alleged benefits had already been dismissed by this Court; (2) he had never prayed for payment of his
vacation leave; and (3) the company’s policy on forfeiture of benefits and privileges upon the dismissal
of an employee prevails over the CBA

Issues + Held:
1. W/N Tolentino is entitled to reliefs prayed for – NO
 “An employee who defies a return-to-work order issued by the SOLE is deemed to have committed an illegal act
which is a just case to dismiss the employee under Art. 282 of the LC”
 In PAL, Inc. v. Acting Secretary of Labor, the SC held: “A strike that is undertaken despite the issuance by the
SOL of an assumption and/or certification is a prohibited activity and thus illegal… the loss of employment
status results from the striking employees’ own act – an act which is illegal, an act in violation of the law and
in defiance of authority”
 In Rodriguez v. PAL the Court held: “In the 1st ALPAP case, the Court upheld the DOLE Secretary’s
Resolution… declaring that the strike of June 5, 1998 was illegal and all ALPAP officers and members who
participated therein had lost their employment status. In the 2nd ALPAP case, the Court ruled that even though
the dispositive portion of the DOLE Secretary’s Resolution did not specifically enumerate the names of those
who actually participated, such omission cannot prevent the effective execution of the decision in the 1 st ALPAP
case.”
o Tolentino (who did NOT deny his participation in the strike and his failure to promptly comply with
the return-to-work order of the SOLE, could not claim any retirement benefits because he did NOT
retire – he simply lost his employment status
 Retirement is the result of a bilateral act of the parties  a voluntary agreement between employer and
employee
o Whereby the employee, after reaching a certain age, agrees to sever his employment
 It is clear therefore, that Tolentino never retired. There was no “voluntary agreement”.
Tolentino lost his employment status because of his own actions
o Admittedly, Tolentino was rehired  BUT this was a “reapplication” meaning he is treated as a new
hire
 He even voluntarily completed the probationary period of six months
 It was made clear to Tolentino that he was being hired as a “new employee”
o July 15, 1999: less than a year after Tolentino was rehired as a new pilot, he voluntarily resigned
 Said voluntary resignation does not entitle him to retirement benefits under the PAL-ALPAP
retirement plan
 Under Art. VII of said Retirement Plan Rules and Regulations, Tolentino is not entitled to
the retirement benefits under the PAL-ALPAP retirement plan. He had not completed even one
year of his new employment with PAL
 The Rules and Regulations provide that the member-pilot must have
completed at least 5 years of continuous service with PAL to be entitled
to the resignation benefit
 Tolentino resigned in July 1999, which was only about a year from when he
was rehired by the company  he is not eligible for such resignation benefit
 Tolentino argues that he had been a PAL employee for more than 20 years (employed since October 1971), and
thus qualified for the benefit
o The SC disagrees  his first employment was terminated due to just causes (not following return-to-
work order and participating in an illegal strike)
o Enriquez v. Zamora does not apply squarely in this case  in Enrique, the pilots tendered a mass
resignation  in this case, there was no mass resignation. They were legally terminated.
 Retirement benefits, especially those which are given before the mandatory retirement age, are given as a form
of reward for the services rendered by the employee to the employer
o It would be contrary to the rationale of the retirement benefits to reward an employee who was
terminated due to just cause, or who committed an act that was enough to merit his dismissal

Ruling: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.