Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. ACTING SECRETARY OF LABOR JOSE S. BRILLANTES

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR NO. 160058 2007-06-22	PILIPINO TELEPHONE CORPORATION v. PILIPINO TELEPHONE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION PUNO, C.J.
This rule was relaxed in the case of PAL v. Brillantes[37] where the Court "invoke[d] its judicial prerogative to resolve disputes in a way to render to each interested party the most judicious solution, and in the ultimate scheme, a resolution of a dispute tending to preserve the greater order of society." In said case, the Court dismissed the petition of PAL seeking the termination from employment of certain Union members and officers who staged a strike in violation of the Secretary of Labor's return-to-work order. The Court found that both parties contributed to the volatile atmosphere that emerged despite the Secretary of Labor's status quo order as PAL terminated en masse the employment of 183 union officers and members. It noted the finding of the Acting Secretary of Labor that PAL "did not come to this office with 'clean hands' in seeking the termination of the officers and members of PALEA who participated in the 16 June 1994 strike."[38]
	GR NO. 154591 2007-03-05	MANILA HOTEL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
MHEA propounds the theory[56] that both parties had acted in pari delicto and, therefore, the dismissal of its members who participated in the illegal strike, was unwarranted, citing as its precedents Philippine Airlines Inc. v. Brillantes[57] and Philippines Interfashion Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission.[58] In both cases, the undisputed finding that the employer was guilty of an illegal lockout while the union conducted an illegal strike, caused the Court to order the reinstatement of the employees who participated in the illegal strike. In Philippine Airlines Inc. v. Brillantes,[59] the Court emphasized the unequivocal rule that participating in a strike undertaken in defiance of the order of the SOLE results in the loss of employment status. It only made an exception of the said case because the records clearly established that the employer, Philippine Airlines, Inc., terminated the employment of 183 union officers and members, in violation of the order issued by the SOLE.[60] In Philippines Interfashion Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, the return-to-work order was not issued pursuant to an assumption or certification order.[61] More importantly, the employees complied with the return-to-work order and reported back for work within one day after receiving the same. Despite such compliance, the employer refused to reinstate 114 employees, and, thus, such refusal on the part of the employer amounted to an illegal lockout.[62]
	GR NO. 154591 2007-03-05	MANILA HOTEL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
MHEA propounds the theory[56] that both parties had acted in pari delicto and, therefore, the dismissal of its members who participated in the illegal strike, was unwarranted, citing as its precedents Philippine Airlines Inc. v. Brillantes[57] and Philippines Interfashion Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission.[58] In both cases, the undisputed finding that the employer was guilty of an illegal lockout while the union conducted an illegal strike, caused the Court to order the reinstatement of the employees who participated in the illegal strike. In Philippine Airlines Inc. v. Brillantes,[59] the Court emphasized the unequivocal rule that participating in a strike undertaken in defiance of the order of the SOLE results in the loss of employment status. It only made an exception of the said case because the records clearly established that the employer, Philippine Airlines, Inc., terminated the employment of 183 union officers and members, in violation of the order issued by the SOLE.[60] In Philippines Interfashion Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, the return-to-work order was not issued pursuant to an assumption or certification order.[61] More importantly, the employees complied with the return-to-work order and reported back for work within one day after receiving the same. Despite such compliance, the employer refused to reinstate 114 employees, and, thus, such refusal on the part of the employer amounted to an illegal lockout.[62]
	GR NO. 154591 2007-03-05	MANILA HOTEL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the present case, nothing in the records shows that Manila Hotel was guilty of an illegal lockout. It readmitted the six (6) employees who complied with the return-to-work order. MHEA made a vague reference to striking employees who complied with the return-to-work order, but were nevertheless refused re-admittance by Manila Hotel.[63] However, they failed to even identify these employees. There is no allegation that MHEA filed any case for illegal lock-out against Manila Hotel. What is clearly shown by the records is that the strike or picketing was still being conducted on 28 February 2000, way after the 24-hour deadline set by the NLRC.[64] Thus, it is obvious that applying the in pari delicto doctrine pronounced in Philippine Airlines Inc. v. Brillantes[65] and Philippines Interfashion Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission[66] to this case would be improper and without basis.