Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Philippine Airlines v. Bichara, Sep 2, 2015
Philippine Airlines v. Bichara, Sep 2, 2015
BICHARA
G.R. No. 213729 | September 2, 2015
DOCTRINE:
A judgment should be implemented according to the terms of its dispositive
portion is a long and well-established rule. As such, where the writ of
execution [issued by the labor arbiter] exceeds the judgment which gives it
life, the writ has pro tanto no validity. However, jurisprudence holds that
courts may modify or alter the judgment to harmonize the same with justice
when after judgment has been rendered and the latter has become final,
facts and circumstances transpire which render its execution impossible or
unjust.
The NLRC Ruling: The NLRC reversed and set aside LAs decision and
denied the motion for execution for being moot and academi
CA Ruling: The CA reversed and set aside the NLRC's ruling.
ISSUE: W/N Bichara is entitled to separation pay and damages.
HELD: NO, Bichara is not entitled to separation pay and damages.
RATIO:
FACTS:
During the pendency of the illegal demotion case before the CA in 1998,
PAL implemented a retrenchment program that resulted in the
termination of Bichara's employment. This prompted him, along with
more than 1,400 other retrenched flight attendants, to file a SEPARATE
COMPLAINT for illegal retrenchment with claims for reinstatement,
backwages, and damages against PAL (illegal RETRENCHMENT case).
In 2008, Bichara filed a motion for execution with the LA of its decision in
the illegal DEMOTION case, which PAL opposed by arguing that the
complaint for illegal demotion was already moot retrenchment due to the
retrenchment of Bichara in 1998 and his having reached the compulsory
retirement age in 2005.