Philippine Airlines vs NLRC, GR 55159, Dec.

22, 1989
Topic: Fair Days Wage for Fair Days Labor
Facs:
Private respondent Dolina was admitted to the Philippine Airlines (PAL) Aviation School for
training as a pilot beginning ! "an#ary $%&' (he training agreement bo#nd PAL to provide
reg#lar and permanent employment to Dolina #pon completion of the training co#rse' )n *+
"an#ary $%,- Dolina completed the co#rse- and #ndertoo. an e/#ipment /#alification co#rse
#p to , )ctober $%,' )n $ )ctober $%,- the 0ivil Aerona#tics Administration iss#ed him a
license as 0ommercial Pilot and PAL then e1tended him a temporary appointment for si1 (!)
months as Limited First )fficer' When his appointment was d#e to e1pire on &2 April $%+-
Dolina had only logged eighty fo#r (3,) ho#rs and fifty five (++) min#tes flying time- short of
the minim#m +22 flying ho#rs re/#ired for reg#lari4ation as First )fficer' (o enable him to
complete the re/#irement- his employment was e1tended for another si1 months which
appointment was described as 5permanent'5 )n & )ctober $%+- when his appointment was
again d#e to e1pire- he was still short of the minim#m flying time re/#irement s#ch that his
appointment was again e1tended #p to &2 April $%!' D#ring this third e1tension of his
appointment- Dolina completed the +22 flying ho#rs re/#irement- and th#s on & 6arch $%!
he applied for reg#lari4ation as First )fficer' Pending his physical e1amination by the chief
Flight S#rgeon- his appointment was again e1tended to & )ctober $%!' )n % A#g#st $%!-
Dolina too. a psychological e1amination wherein his 5Adaptability 7ating5 was fo#nd to be
5#nacceptable'5 )n *& September $%!- complainant was again s#b8ected to an e1amination
and interview by the Pilot Acceptance 9#alifications :oard as part of the reg#lari4ation
process- which e1amination revealed that after thoro#gh eval#ation of the candidate;s past
records- his performance and the res#lt of his medical e1amination as s#bmitted by the
6edical S#b<Department- 6r' A' Dolina was fo#nd not /#alified for reg#lar employment in the
0ompany'
(he :oard recommended the termination of the complainant p#rs#ant to which PAL filed a
clearance application for Dolina;s termination' =e was p#t in preventive s#spension' =e
co#ntered with a complaint for illegal dismissal'
(he )>0 of the Dept of Labor 7egional )ffice ?o' >@ lifted the preventive s#spension and
ordereed petitioner to reinstate Dolina to former position with f#ll bac.wages' (he iss#e of
termination and bac.wages was referred to the A1ec#tive Labor Arbiter for arbitration'
PAL appealed the order to the Sec of Labor' =owever- pending appeal- the parties signed an
agreement before the Bndersecretary of Labor that pending final resol#tion- Dolina wo#ld be
considered in the payroll and that the order of the 7egional Director (reC reinstatement with
bac.wages) is rendered moot and academic'
(he Acting Sec of Labor iss#ed an order finding that the s#spension was rendereed moot and
academic by the agreement and referred the case to the A1ec#tive Labor Arbiter' (he Labor
Arbiter rendered a decision stating that there is merit on the application for clearance and
sho#ld be grantedD Dolina;s termination was #pheld- and claim for moral damages is denied'
PAL removed Dolina from payroll' Dolina appealed to the ?L70- who affirmed the decision of
the Labor Arbiter b#t added that PAL sho#ld restore Dolina to its payroll'
=ence- this petition with a prayer for a temporary restraining order' (7) was iss#ed'
!ss"e:
Whether ?L70 committed grave ab#se of discretion in holding that Dolina was entitled to his
salaries from April - $%$ #ntil the case is finally resolved'
#el$:
(he ?L70 order is contrary to law and established 8#rispr#dence' (he ?L70 acted in e1cess
of its 8#risdiction in iss#ing the order' (he portion of the ?L70 decision re/#iring petitioner to
restore D)lina to its payroll and ordering the payment of his salaries from April $%$ #ntil
the case is finally resolved is declared n#ll and void' (he (7) iss#ed was made permanent'
Raio:
>n interpreting the cla#se 5pending final resol#tion of the case by arbitration-5 iin this case- the
parties co#ld not have intended to incl#de in the cla#se the whole ad8#dicatory process-
incl#ding appeal' >t wo#ld have meant that Dolina wo#ld be incl#ded in PAL;s payroll- effective
from the time he was preventively s#spended #ntil final resol#tion witho#t having to perform
any wor. for the petitioner' ?either can proceedings on apeal before the ?L70 be considered
part of the arbitration proceeding' Bnder the Labor 0ode (Art' *%- PD ,,*- as amended)- the
Labor Arbiter is clothed with the a#thority to cond#ct comp#lsory arbitration on cases involving
terminaton disp#tes and when a decision is rendered- comp#lsory arbitration is deemed
terminated' Appeal is beyond the scope of arbitration since the Labor arbiter;s decision is
merely reviewed'
With respect to ?L70;s order of incl#ding Dolina in PAL;s payroll pending final resol#tion- in
view of the ?L70;s finding that Dolina;s dismissal was valid- the ?L70 had no a#thority to
order the contin#ed payment od D)lina;s salaries' (he ?L70;s order wo#ld res#lt in
compensating Dolina for services no longer rendered and when he is no longer in PAL;s
employ' (his is contrary to the age<old r#le of 5a fair day;s wage for a fair day;s labor5 which
contin#es to govern the relation between labor ans capital and remains a basic factor in
determining employees; wages'
6oreover- the order of payment of bac.wages to Dolina notwithstanding a valid dismissal is
#ntenable' :ac.wages are grated on gro#nds of e/#ity for earnings which a wor.er or
employee lost d#e to illegal dismissal' >n this case- dismissal was for 8#st ca#se- so there is no
fact#al or legal basis for ordering the payment of bac.wages' >t also wo#ld have placed Dolina
in a better position that those wor.ers who were fo#nd to be illegally dismissed beca#se for
illegal dismissal- the bac.wages that can be recovered is limited to three years- while Dolina
can recover ten years in bac.wages'