Almagro vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc.

Individual members of a union are bound by a final judgment in a prior case involving the union where there is substantial identity of parties and identity of issues, under the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment (res judicata); specifically, pilots who signed the PAL security logbook on June 26, 1998 are conclusively presumed to have participated in the illegal strike and defied the return-to-work order, resulting in loss of employment status.

In 1997-1998, PAL and ALPAP were embroiled in a labor dispute. Despite the DOLE Secretary's assumption of jurisdiction on December 23, 1997, ALPAP declared a strike on June 5, 1998. The Secretary issued a return-to-work order on June 7, 1998 with a deadline of June 9, 1998. When ALPAP members attempted to return on June 26, 1998, PAL refused acceptance. The DOLE Secretary subsequently declared the strike illegal and held that officers and members who participated lost their employment status. This was upheld in G.R. No. 152306 (2002). Later, in Airline Pilots (G.R. No. 168382, 2011), the SC ruled that the PAL security logbook was crucial evidence identifying those who defied the return-to-work order.

• Petitioners filed individual illegal dismissal complaints before the Labor Arbiter (NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-07-05400-98 and 00-11-08918-98) on July 3, 1998 and November 4, 1998
• Labor Arbiter Donato G. Quinto, Jr. dismissed the complaints in a Decision dated July 16, 2008
• NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's dismissal in a Decision dated May 15, 2009 (and Resolution dated August 7, 2009)
• Petitioners filed petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 111466)
• CA initially granted certiorari in a Decision dated January 31, 2012, reversing the NLRC and awarding backwages
• PAL filed motion for reconsideration
• CA issued Amended Decision dated December 7, 2012, reversing its earlier decision and affirming the NLRC dismissal
• Petitioners filed petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the SC

• Petitioners were former senior pilots of PAL and members of ALPAP
• On June 5, 1998, ALPAP staged a strike despite the DOLE Secretary's assumption of jurisdiction since December 23, 1997
• On June 7, 1998, the DOLE Secretary issued a return-to-work order with a compliance deadline of June 9, 1998
• On June 26, 1998, petitioners attempted to report for work and signed the PAL security logbook for "Return to Work Returnees/Compliance"
• PAL refused to accept petitioners, claiming they missed the June 9, 1998 deadline
• Petitioners claimed they were on approved official leave during the strike period (June 5-9, 1998) and only attempted to return after their leaves expired
• The DOLE Secretary's June 1, 1999 Resolution declared the strike illegal and held that officers and members who participated lost employment status
• In prior SC cases (Airline Pilots and Rodriguez), the Court held that the PAL security logbook was conclusive evidence that those who signed it on June 26, 1998 participated in the strike and defied the return-to-work order
• Petitioners filed individual illegal dismissal cases after PAL's rehabilitation was completed in 2007

• The CA erred in finding they participated in the illegal strike based solely on their signatures in the PAL security logbook; the signatures were not admissions of participation but merely attempts to regain employment after being effectively dismissed on June 9, 1998
• They were on approved official leave during the material period (June 5-9, 1998) and could not legally participate in the strike; they reported for duty immediately upon expiration of their leaves
• The return-to-work order was not served on them and was addressed only to striking officers and members of ALPAP
• The findings of the NLRC and Labor Arbiter were based on conjecture and surmises; photographs presented by PAL were suspect and lacked timestamps
• They are not bound by Airline Pilots because they were not parties thereto; ALPAP had no authority to represent them in individual illegal dismissal claims; res judicata and stare decisis do not apply
• The defense of being on official leave was belatedly raised in Airline Pilots and the evidence in this case differs, constituting a "powerful countervailing consideration" against stare decisis

• The petition is defective as to Almagro for lack of valid certification of non-forum shopping (signed by attorney-in-fact, not personally)
• The petition raises factual issues beyond the scope of Rule 45 review
• The CA's Amended Decision is supported by substantial evidence and law; the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion
• PAL acted in accordance with law in refusing to accept those who offered to return only on June 26, 1998, after the deadline
• Petitioners are bound by Airline Pilots and Rodriguez under the doctrines of res judicata (conclusiveness of judgment) and stare decisis

• Procedural Issues: Whether the petition is defective for lack of proper certification of non-forum shopping as to petitioner Almagro; Whether the petition raises factual issues proper for Rule 45 review
• Substantive Issues: Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the NLRC's dismissal of petitioners' illegal dismissal complaints; Whether petitioners are bound by the prior judgment in Airline Pilots under the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment (res judicata); Whether the principle of stare decisis bars the relitigation of the issue of petitioners' participation in the illegal strike; Whether petitioners' signatures on the PAL security logbook constitute substantial evidence of their participation in the illegal strike and defiance of the return-to-work order

• Procedural: The SC addressed the procedural issues but proceeded to rule on the merits. The defect in certification was not fatal to the entire petition. The SC emphasized that in Rule 45 petitions from labor cases, review is limited to whether the CA correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC, not to factual findings per se.
• Substantive:
  • The CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion in affirming the NLRC's dismissal.
  • Petitioners are bound by the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment (res judicata) under Section 47, Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. There is substantial identity of parties (ALPAP in prior cases acted in representation of its members; petitioners share identity of interest) and identity of issues (participation in illegal strike and defiance of return-to-work order).
  • The principle of stare decisis applies. The factual circumstances and arguments raised by petitioners are identical to those in Airline Pilots, Rodriguez, and Ahmee. There are no "powerful countervailing considerations" to depart from precedent.
  • The PAL security logbook constitutes substantial evidence proving petitioners' defiance of the return-to-work order. The finding in Airline Pilots that those who signed the logbook on June 26, 1998 participated in the strike and defied the order is conclusive.
  • Petitioners' claim of being on official leave does not overcome the conclusive effect of the prior judgments and the logbook evidence.

• Conclusiveness of Judgment (Res Judicata) — Under Section 47, Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a final judgment is conclusive as to any right, fact, or matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the determination of an action. This applies even where there is no identity of causes of action, provided there is identity of parties (or substantial identity) and identity of issues. The SC applied this to hold that petitioners, as ALPAP members, were bound by the prior determination in Airline Pilots that signatories to the June 26, 1998 logbook participated in the illegal strike.
• Stare Decisis — The principle that for the sake of certainty, a conclusion reached in one case should be applied to those that follow if the facts are substantially the same, even though the parties may be different. The SC held this bars relitigation of the same issue where the same questions relating to the same event have been put forward by parties similarly situated.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion — In labor cases brought via Rule 65, the SC's review under Rule 45 is limited to determining whether the CA correctly resolved the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC. Grave abuse of discretion connotes judgment exercised in a capricious, whimsical, despotic manner tantamount to lack of jurisdiction.
• Effect of Defiance of Return-to-Work Order — Under Article 263(g) of the Labor Code, when the Secretary of Labor assumes jurisdiction over a labor dispute, any strike or lockout is prohibited. Willful defiance of a return-to-work order results in loss of employment status.

• "In a Rule 45 review, we consider the correctness of the assailed CA decision, in contrast with the review for jurisdictional error that we undertake under Rule 65. Furthermore, Rule 45 limits us to the review of questions of law raised against the assailed CA decision. In ruling for legal correctness, we have to view the CA decision in the same context that the petition for certiorari it ruled upon was presented to it; we have to examine the CA decision from the prism of whether it correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it, not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct."
• "The logbook with the heading 'Return-to-Work Compliance/Returnees' bears their individual signature signifying their conformity that they were among those workers who returned to work only on June 26, 1998 or after the deadline imposed by DOLE. From this crucial and vital piece of evidence, it is apparent that each of these pilots is bound by the judgment."
• "Stare decisis et non quieta movere. Stand by the decisions and disturb not what is settled. Stare decisis simply means that for the sake of certainty, a conclusion reached in one case should be applied to those that follow if the facts are substantially the same, even though the parties may be different."

• Airline Pilots Association of the Philippines v. Philippine Airlines, Inc. (G.R. No. 168382, June 6, 2011) — Controlling precedent establishing that the PAL security logbook was conclusive evidence that those who signed it on June 26, 1998 participated in the illegal strike and defied the return-to-work order; applied the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment.
• Rodriguez v. Philippine Airlines, Inc. (G.R. Nos. 178501 & 178510, January 11, 2016) — Followed; held that Airline Pilots was res judicata under the concept of conclusiveness of judgment as to the issue of who participated in the illegal strike; established that substantial identity of parties exists between ALPAP and its individual members.
• Montoya v. Transmed Manila Corporation (G.R. No. 183329, August 27, 2009) — Cited for the standard of review in Rule 45 petitions from labor cases under Rule 65.
• G.R. No. 152306 (Resolution dated April 10, 2002) — Prior case upholding the DOLE Secretary's declaration that the June 1998 strike was illegal and that participants lost employment status.
• Ahmee, et al. v. PAL (G.R. No. 180152, Resolution dated February 4, 2008) — Cited as precedent applying Airline Pilots to similar factual circumstances.

• Article 263(g) of the Labor Code — Provides for the Secretary of Labor's power to assume jurisdiction over labor disputes affecting national interest, and the prohibition of strikes/lockouts during such assumption; basis for the return-to-work order and the consequence of loss of employment for defiance.
• Section 47, Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure — Governs the effect of judgments; specifically the third paragraph regarding conclusiveness of judgment (res judicata).
• Rule 45 of the Rules of Court — Governs petitions for review on certiorari; limits review to questions of law.
• Rule 65 of the Rules of Court — Governs special civil actions for certiorari; limited to jurisdictional errors or grave abuse of discretion.