PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. VS ENRIQUE LIGAN

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC.

VS

ENRIQUE LIGAN
G.R. No. 146408, 30 April 2009

It must be stressed that respondents, having been declared to be regular employees, had acquired security of tenure. As such, they could only be dismissed by the real employer, on the basis of just or authorized cause, and with observance of procedural due process.

Enrique Ligan, et al. and the other respondents were employees of Synergy Services Corporation (Synergy) which provides manpower for Philippine Airlines. It was later discovered that Synergy is a labor-only contractor. They were dismissed by Philippine Airlines on several grounds, one of which is in the guise of retrenchment. The legality of the dismissal of the Ligan, et al. has been pending before the Court of Appeals.

Philippine Airlines paid the wages of the Ligan, et al. but contested the employment status of Roque Pilapil for he is already terminated and Benedicto Auxtero who signed the ―Release and Quitclaim and Waiver‖. Philippine Airlines therefore pleads to the court to reconsider its first Decision on the payment of wages and benefits.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Supreme Court shall overrule its first decision regarding the grant of wages and benefits to Ligan, et al.

HELD:
In light of these recent manifestations-informations of the parties, the Court finds that a modification of the Decision is in order, the claims with respect to Pilapil and Auxtero having been deemed extinguished even before the promulgation of the Decision. That Pilapil was a regular employee yields to the final finding of a valid dismissal in the supervening case involving his own misconduct, while Auxtero’s attempt at forum-shopping should not be countenanced.

IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS, the Court finds no sufficient reason to deviate from its Decision, but proceeds, nonetheless, to clarify a few points. While this Court’s Decision ruled on the regular status of Ligan, et al., it must be deemed to be without prejudice to the resolution of the issue of illegal dismissal in the proper case.

Notably, subject of the Decision was Ligan, et al.’s complaints for regularization and under-/non-payment of benefits. The Court did not and could not take cognizance of the validity of the eventual dismissal of Ligan, et al. because the matter of just or authorized cause is beyond the issues of the case. That is why the Court did not order reinstatement for such relief presupposes a finding of illegal dismissal in the proper case which, as the parties now manifest, pends before the appellate court.

All told, the pending illegal dismissal case in CA-G.R. SP No. 00922 may now take its course. The Court’s finding that Ligan, et al. are regular employees of PAL neither frustrates nor preempts the appellate court’s proceedings in resolving the issue of retrenchment as an authorized cause for termination. If an authorized cause for dismissal is later found to exist, PAL would still have to pay Ligan, et al. their corresponding benefits and salary differential up to June 30, 1998. Otherwise, if there is a finding of illegal dismissal, an order for reinstatement with full backwages does not conflict with the Court’s declaration of the regular employee status of Ligan, et al.