Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Alberto Santos, Jr.

Houdiel Magadia, Gilbert Antonio, Regino Duran, Philippine

Airlines Employees Association, and the National Labor Relations Commission
GR No. 77875 || February 4, 1993 || Ponente: Regalado, J. || Topic: Declaration of Basic Policy

Facts:
Santos, Jr., Magadia, Antonio, and Duran (SMAD) are all Port Stewards of Catering Sub-
Department, Passenger Services Department of Philippine Airlines, Inc (PAL.) On various occasions, several
deductions/charges were made from their salary in lieu of losses of inventoried items and mishandling of
company properties. SMAD refuted these allegations, thus, with the help of their employees’ association,
Philippine Airlines Employees Association (PALEA), they made a formal notice to PAL. As there was no
action taken by PAL, SMAD and PALEA filed a formal grievance on November 4, 1984 pursuant to their
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with PAL. After several attempts to have their grievance resolved,
SMAD had a meeting with Mr. Abad, Manager for Catering of PAL. The latter claimed that amidst non-
conduction of inventor works, SMAD were still penalized with 1/10 of the selling price of the missing items.
SMAD and PALEA argues that the aforementioned meeting must not hold as the delay of Abad to hear their
grievances was tantamount to a resolution of SMAD’s case in the latter’s favor (See CBA at the end of the
digest.) Unfortunately, suspension ranging from 7 days to 30 days.
SMAD and PALEA then filed a complaint for illegal suspension before the Labor Arbiter (LA)
against PAL and ruled in favor of the latter (upholding the suspension.) The National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC), upon the appeal of SMAD and PALEA, reversed the LA, setting aside the dismissal
of the case. A motion for reconsideration was filed by PAL but to no avail.

Issue(s):
i. WoN NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in reversing the
dismissal of the LA?
a. Whether the NLRC was correct in upholding the stipulation in the CBA granting a ruling in
favor of complainants in cases where the division head fails to act within the reglementary
period?
Ruling:
SC: The SC denies the appeal of PAL, and orders the payment of salaries during the time of their
suspension and the removal of the penalty from their records, primarily on the ground that the
laborers properly observed their right to the CBA stipulation.

i. With regards to the CBA stipulation:

a. PAL misinterpreted the stipulation when it said that having not completed the grievance
machinery process of the CBA, status quo must be observed.
b. It alleged that the employees were wrong in reckoning their date of submission of their
grievance to Abad’s secretary as the start of the 5-day reglementary period, for the reason that
the latter was on leave. They stipulate that there are two concurrent requirements for the
reglementary period to run, to wit: i. presentment of the grievance, and ii. discussion between
the shop steward and the division head.
c. The Supreme Court resolves that PAL was incorrect in interpreting the aforementioned CBA
on the ground that the Constitutional mandate dictates to favor the laboring classes, not just for
sympathy but to level the playing field of the employer and the employee. Social Justice dictates
that those with less privileges in life should have more privilege in law.
d. The information of Abad, the division head, being on leave was not known to the employees
when they filed their grievances. The NLRC, as echoed by the SC, reiterates that it is to be
expected that someone has to be left to attend to the division head’s duties, for the duties were
not personal to Abad, but to his capacity. Such excuse of leave would be against public policy
granting laborers the right to resolution of their grievances.
Doctrine:
The Court, in accordance to the Constitution and to the doctrine of Social Justice, must weigh in
favor of the laborers, not just for mere sympathy, but to level the playing field in ascertaining the rights of
employers and employees.
Additional Notes:

Section 2, Article IV of the PAL-PALEA Collective Bargaining Agreement (hereinafter, CBA):

"Section 2 — Processing of Grievances.
xxx xxx xxx
STEP 1 — Any employee who believes that he has a justifiable grievance shall take the matter up
with his shop steward. If the shop steward feels there is justification for taking the matter up with
the Company, he shall record the grievance on the grievance form heretofore agree upon by the
parties. Two (2) copies of the grievance form properly filled, accepted, and signed shall then be
presented to and discussed by the shop steward with the division head. The division head shall
answer the grievance within five (5) days from the date of presentation by inserting his decision on
the grievance form, signing and dating same, and returning one copy to the shop steward. If the
division head fails to act within the five (5)-day regl(e)mentary period, the grievance must be
resolved in favor of the aggrieved party. If the division head's decision is not appealed to Step II,
the grievance shall be considered settled on the basis of the decision made, and shall not be eligible
for further appeal." 5 (Emphasis by the SC.)