Scribd
Upload
93 views3 pages

Pal V NLRC GR 120567

This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding two flight stewards who were dismissed by Philippine Airlines (PAL) for their alleged involvement in currency smuggling. The stewards filed a petition for injunction with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) to stop PAL from enforcing their dismissal. The NLRC issued a temporary injunction ordering PAL to cease enforcement. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the NLRC exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing the injunction because there was no existing labor dispute filed with the labor arbiter. For the NLRC to have jurisdiction over a case, there must first be a complaint filed for illegal dismissal. Since no complaint had been filed, the petition for injunction was essentially a case for illegal dismissal,

Uploaded by

Ubeng Juan Dela Vega
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
93 views3 pages

Pal V NLRC GR 120567

This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding two flight stewards who were dismissed by Philippine Airlines (PAL) for their alleged involvement in currency smuggling. The stewards filed a petition for injunction with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) to stop PAL from enforcing their dismissal. The NLRC issued a temporary injunction ordering PAL to cease enforcement. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the NLRC exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing the injunction because there was no existing labor dispute filed with the labor arbiter. For the NLRC to have jurisdiction over a case, there must first be a complaint filed for illegal dismissal. Since no complaint had been filed, the petition for injunction was essentially a case for illegal dismissal,

Uploaded by

Ubeng Juan Dela Vega
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/ 3

G.R. No.

120567 March 20, 1998

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., petitioner,


vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, FERDINAND PINEDA and
GOGFREDO CABLING, respondents.

Private respondents are flight stewards of PAL. Both were dismissed from the service
for their alleged involvement in the April 3, 1993 currency smuggling in Hong Kong.

Aggrieved by said dismissal, the Flight Stewards filed with the NLRC a petition[1] for
injunction. The NLRC issued a temporary mandatory injunction[2] enjoining PAL to
cease and desist from enforcing its Memorandum of dismissal.

Almost two (2) years ago, the petitioners were instructed to attend an investigation by
the Security and Fraud Prevention Sub-Department' regarding an incident in Hongkong
at which Joseph Abaca, Avionics Mechanic in Hongkong 'was intercepted by the
Hongkong Airport Police carrying a bag said to contain some 2.5 million pesos in
Philippine Currencies.

Mr. Abaca claimed that he just found said plastic bag at the Skybed Section of the
arrival flight where they served as flight stewards of said flight a confrontation between
Mr. Abaca and stewards herein was compulsorily arranged by the disciplinary board' at
which hearing, Abaca was made to identify stewards as co-conspirators.

Mr. Joseph Abaca volunteered the information that the real owner of said money was
one who frequented his headquarters in Hongkong... it appeared 'that Mr. Joseph
Abaca was the courier, and had another mechanic in Manila who hid the currency at the
plane's skybed for Abaca to retrieve in Hongkong

The employees were surprised to receive a Memorandum terminating their services for
alleged violation of respondent's Code of Discipline 'effective immediately'

In support of the issuance of the writ of temporary injunction, the NLRC adopted the
view that: Stewards cannot be validly dismissed on the strength of PAL’s Code of
Discipline which was declared illegal by this Court for the reason that it was formulated
by the PAL without the participation of its employees as required in R.A. 6715,
amending Article 211 of the Labor Code

The NLRC is empowered under Article 218 (e) of the Labor Code not only to restrain
any actual or threatened commission of any or all prohibited or unlawful acts but also to
require the performance of a particular act in any labor dispute, which, if not restrained
or performed forthwith, may cause grave or irreparable damage to any party;
Issues:

Whether or not, the NLRC even without a complaint for illegal dismissal filed before the
labor arbiter, entertain an action for injunction and issue such writ enjoining Philippine
Airlines, Inc. from enforcing its Orders of dismissal against its stewards, and ordering
PAL to reinstate the stewards to their previous positions?

Ruling:

No.

Taking into account the foregoing definitions, 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.

The petition for injunction directly filed before the NLRC is in reality an action for illegal
dismissal.

Generally, injunction is a preservative remedy for the protection of one's substantive


rights or interest. It is not a cause of action in itself but merely a provisional remedy, an
adjunct to a main suit. The application of the injunctive writ rests upon the existence of
an emergency or of a special reason before the main case be regularly heard.

Injunction is also a special equitable relief granted only in cases where there is no plain,
adequate and complete remedy at law.

In labor cases, Article 218 of the Labor Code empowers the NLRC-

(e) To enjoin or restrain any actual or threatened commission of any or all prohibited or
unlawful acts or to require the performance of a particular act in any labor dispute
which, if not restrained or performed forthwith, may cause grave or... irreparable
damage to any party or render ineffectual any decision in favor of such party;

Complementing the above-quoted provision, Sec. 1, Rule XI of the New Rules of


Procedure of the NLRC, pertinently provides as follows:

"Section 1. Injunction in Ordinary Labor Dispute.-A preliminary injunction or a restraining


order may be granted by the Commission... involving or arising from any labor dispute
before the Commission,... The foregoing ancillary power may be exercised by the Labor
Arbiters only as an incident to the cases pending before them in order to preserve the
rights of the parties during the pendency of the case, but excluding labor disputes
involving strikes or... lockout.

The power of the NLRC to issue an injunctive writ originates from "any labor dispute"
upon application by a party thereof.

The term "labor dispute" is defined as "any controversy or matter concerning terms and
conditions of employment or the association or representation of persons in negotiating,
fixing, maintaining, changing, or arranging the terms and conditions of employment
regardless... of whether or not the disputants stand in the proximate relation of
employers and employees."

The term "controversy" is likewise defined as "a litigated question; adversary proceeding
in a court of law; a civil action or suit, either at law or in equity; a justiciable dispute."

A "justiciable controversy" is "one involving an active antagonistic assertion of a legal


right on one side and a denial thereof on the other concerning a real, and not a mere
theoretical

On the other hand, the NLRC shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases
decided by labor arbiters as provided in Article 217(b) of the Labor Code.

In short, the jurisdiction of the NLRC in illegal dismissal cases is appellate in nature and
therefore, it cannot entertain the stewards petition for injunction which challenges the
dismissal orders of petitioner.

Thus, the NLRC exceeded its jurisdiction when it issued the assailed Order

You might also like