Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 22 views

    PAL vs. PALEA, 19 SCRA 483 (1967)

    Uploaded by

    Reyes, Ann Margareth A.
    1) Four employees were dismissed by PAL in 1950 and reinstated in 1959 following a CIR resolution directing their reinstatement with back wages and without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. 2) The dismissed employees claimed entitlement to various benefits during the layoff period such as Christmas bonuses and transportation allowances. PAL objected that these were not specifically mentioned in the CIR resolution. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the CIR resolution intended to restore the employees to their pre-dismissal status, as if they had worked continuously, and thus they were entitled to claimed bonuses and benefits during the layoff period, except for free trip passes which required application and approval.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    PAL vs. PALEA, 19 SCRA 483 (1967)

    Uploaded by

    Reyes, Ann Margareth A.
    22 views1 page
    1) Four employees were dismissed by PAL in 1950 and reinstated in 1959 following a CIR resolution directing their reinstatement with back wages and without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. 2) The dismissed employees claimed entitlement to various benefits during the layoff period such as Christmas bonuses and transportation allowances. PAL objected that these were not specifically mentioned in the CIR resolution. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the CIR resolution intended to restore the employees to their pre-dismissal status, as if they had worked continuously, and thus they were entitled to claimed bonuses and benefits during the layoff period, except for free trip passes which required application and approval.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Four employees were dismissed by PAL in 1950 and reinstated in 1959 following a CIR resolution directing their reinstatement with back wages and without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. 2) The dismissed employees claimed entitlement to various benefits during the layoff period such as Christmas bonuses and transportation allowances. PAL objected that these were not specifically mentioned in the CIR resolution. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the CIR resolution intended to restore the employees to their pre-dismissal status, as if they had worked continuously, and thus they were entitled to claimed bonuses and benefits during the layoff period, except for free trip passes which required application and approval.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    22 views1 page

    PAL vs. PALEA, 19 SCRA 483 (1967)

    Uploaded by

    Reyes, Ann Margareth A.
    1) Four employees were dismissed by PAL in 1950 and reinstated in 1959 following a CIR resolution directing their reinstatement with back wages and without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. 2) The dismissed employees claimed entitlement to various benefits during the layoff period such as Christmas bonuses and transportation allowances. PAL objected that these were not specifically mentioned in the CIR resolution. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the CIR resolution intended to restore the employees to their pre-dismissal status, as if they had worked continuously, and thus they were entitled to claimed bonuses and benefits during the layoff period, except for free trip passes which required application and approval.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    PAL vs.

    PALEA, 19 SCRA 483 (1967)


    G.R. No. L-21120             February 28, 1967

    Facts
    On May 4, 1950, PAL dismissed its above named four (4) employees, who are member of the Philippine Air Lines
    Employees Association (PALEA). CIR en banc passed resolution directing the reinstatement of said employess "to
    their former or equivalent position in the company, with back wages from the date of their reinstatement, and
    without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. On January 14, 1959, said employees were
    reinstated and subsequently their backwages, computed at the rate of their compensation at the time of the
    aforementioned dismissal, less the wages and salaries earned by them elsewhere during the lay-off period, were paid
    to them. The employees objected to this deduction and the CIR sustained them.
    PALEA moved for the execution of the CIR resolution, as regards the "other rights and privileges" therein
    mentioned, referring, more specifically to: (1) Christmas bonus from 1950 to 1958; (2) accumulated sick leave; (3)
    transportation allowance during lay-off period; and (4) accumulated free trip passes, both domestic and
    international. By an order dated October 8, 1962, the CIR granted this motion, except as regards the sick leave of
    Onofre Griño and Bernardino Abarrientos, and the transportation allowance, which were denied.
    PAL maintains that the CIR has erred in acting as it did, because : (1) the aforementioned privileges were not
    specifically mentioned in the CIR resolution of July 13, 1954; (2) the order of the CIR dated October 8, 1962, had,
    allegedly, the effect of amending said resolution; and (3) the clause therein "without prejudice to their seniority or
    other rights and privileges" should be construed prospectively, not retroactively. Hence this appeal.
    Issue
    Whether the dismissed employees are entitled to backwages and other rights and privileges?
    Ruling
    Yes, the dismissed employees are entitled to backwages and other rights and privileges?
    In ordering therein the "reinstatement" of said employees with "back wages from the date of their dismissal to the
    date of their reinstatement, and without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges," it is obvious that
    the resolution intended to restore the employees to their status immediately prior to their dismissal. Rights
    reinstatement, but at the time? Certainly, not after their reinstatement, but at the time of their aforementioned
    dismissal. In other words, the reinstatement was with back wages for the lay-off period, coupled with "seniority or
    other rights and privileges", attached to the status of the employees when they were dismissed. To put it differently,
    the CIR treated said employees as if they had not been absent form work and had been uninterruptedly working
    during the lay-off period.
    As a consequence, the employees involved in the case at bar are entitled to the Christmas bonus that PAL had given
    to all of its employees during said period, for said bonus, having been paid regularly, has become part of the
    compensation of the employees.1 Said employees are also entitled to transportation allowance and the corresponding
    sick leave privileges but subject to limitations. The PAL's appeal as regards the free trip passes is, however, well
    taken, for the employees had no absolute right. The employees had to apply therefore and their applications were
    subject PAL's approval. 
    Wherefore, except as to the free trip passes for the lay-off period, which should not be deemed included in the
    "rights and privileges" awarded in the resolution of July 13, 1954, and subject to the qualification that the
    accumulated sick leave privileges cannot exceed 140 days, the appealed resolution of October 8, 1962, is hereby
    affirmed in all other respects, without pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered.

    You might also like