Scribd
Upload
134 views2 pages

Tolentino vs. PAL Digest

Armando Tolentino was a pilot for Philippine Airlines (PAL) and participated in a 1998 strike by Airline Pilot Association of the Philippines (ALPAP) against PAL. When Tolentino failed to comply with a return-to-work order from the Secretary of Labor, PAL refused to readmit him and he lost his employment status. Tolentino later reapplied for a job at PAL and worked there briefly before resigning. He then sued PAL for separation and retirement benefits. The Supreme Court ruled that Tolentino was not entitled to benefits because he lost his employment status due to his own actions in participating in the illegal strike and not complying with the return-to-work order

Uploaded by

Jaz Aguedan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
134 views2 pages

Tolentino vs. PAL Digest

Armando Tolentino was a pilot for Philippine Airlines (PAL) and participated in a 1998 strike by Airline Pilot Association of the Philippines (ALPAP) against PAL. When Tolentino failed to comply with a return-to-work order from the Secretary of Labor, PAL refused to readmit him and he lost his employment status. Tolentino later reapplied for a job at PAL and worked there briefly before resigning. He then sued PAL for separation and retirement benefits. The Supreme Court ruled that Tolentino was not entitled to benefits because he lost his employment status due to his own actions in participating in the illegal strike and not complying with the return-to-work order

Uploaded by

Jaz Aguedan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

TOLENTINO vs.

PAL
G.R. No. 218984
January 24, 2018

FACTS
Armando Tolentino was a flight engineer with a rank of A340/330 Captain of PAL since
1971 and a member of Airline Pilot Association of the Philippines which had a collective
bargaining agreement with Philippine Airlines.

On June 5, 1998, ALPAP members went on strike and 2 days after, the Secretary of
Labor issued an order requiring all striking officers and members of ALPAP return to
work within 24 hours and requiring the PAL management to accept them under the
same terms and conditions of employment prior to strike. Since they have until June 9
to comply, Tolentino and some pilots continued to participate in the strike. But when
Tolentino and other striking pilots returned to work on June 26, 1998, PAL refused to
readmit them. They filed a complaint for illegal lockout against PAL.

On July 20, Tolentino reapplied for employment with PAL and underwent the 6-month
probationary period. After less than a year, he tendered his resignation.

On June 1, 1999, the Secretary of Labor issued a Resolution declaring the ALPAP strike
as illegal for being procedurally infirm and in open defiance of the return-to-work order.
Members and officers who participated in the strike were declared to have lost their
employment status. Which was affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Tolentino worked for a foreign airline and upon return, he would want to collect his
separation and/or retirement benefits under the CBA which PAL refused to pay. This led
Tolentino to file a complaint against PAL for non-payment of holiday pay, rest day pay,
separation pay and retirement benefits with damages and attorney’s fees.

The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint as he was not illegally dismissed for having
participated in the illegal strike and defied the return-to-work order of the Secretary of
Labor. This was affirmed by the NLRC. The CA also affirmed the decision modifying that
under the CBA, he was entitled to the payment of his vacation time and days earned
but not taken.

ISSUE
Whether Tolentino is entitled to separation and/or retirement benefits.

HELD
NO. An employee who knowingly defies a return-to-work order issued by the Secretary
of Labor is deemed to have committed an illegal act which is a just cause to dismiss the
employee under Article 282 of the Labor Code. In PAL, Inc. v. Acting Secretary of
Labor, we held: A strike that is undertaken despite the issuance by the Secretary of
Labor of an assumption and/or certification is a prohibited activity and thus illegal. The
union officers and members, as a result, are deemed to have lost their employment
status for having knowingly participated in an illegal act. Stated differently, from the
moment a worker defies a return-to-work order, he is deemed to have abandoned his
job. 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. (Emphasis
supplied) In fact, it has already been settled that those who participated in the 5 June
1998 strike of ALPAP are deemed to have lost their employment status with PAL. Thus,
Tolentino, who did not deny his participation in the strike and his failure to promptly
comply with the return-to-work order of the Secretary of Labor, 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
the employer and the employee whereby the latter, after reaching a certain age, agrees
to sever his or her employment with the former. It is clear, therefore, Tolentino had not
retired from PAL — it was not a result of a voluntary agreement. Tolentino lost his
employment status because of his own actions.

Doctrines:
An employee who knowingly defies a return-to-work order issued by the
Secretary of Labor is deemed to have committed an illegal act which is a just
cause to dismiss the employee under Article 282 of the Labor Code.
Reemployment, on the condition that the employee will be treated as a new
employee, is a valid exercise of the employer’s prerogative, as long as it is not
done with anti- union motivation
For purposes of the retirement plan, the computation of Tolentino’s length of
service to the company should be reckoned from the date he was rehired after
his own voluntary application as a new pilot.
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.
Similar to the retirement benefits under the Philippine Airlines, Inc.-Airline
Pilots Association of the Philippines (PAL-ALPAP) Retirement Plan, it is clear
that the pilot must have retired first before he receives the full amount of the
contribution or the equity of the retirement fund.

You might also like