View full case

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. VS.

FACTS:

The case involves the dismissal of several employees by Philippine Airlines (PAL), who alleged that their dismissals were whimsical, baseless, and premature, causing them grave and irreparable injury. They sought the issuance of a temporary mandatory injunction to enjoin their dismissals, claiming that they have no other speedy and adequate remedy at law.

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) invoked its power under Article 218 (e) of the Labor Code to issue temporary mandatory injunctions, which it used to order the reinstatement of the dismissed employees.

PAL filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the NLRC did not have jurisdiction to issue the injunction as the case did not involve a labor dispute. PAL also claimed that the terminations had already taken place and that ordering reinstatement based on mere allegations violated its right to due process. PAL further contended that the NLRC was encroaching on management prerogatives and depriving the labor arbiter of jurisdiction over illegal dismissal cases. Finally, PAL argued that the suspension of termination effects falls under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Labor and that no irreparable or substantial injury had been proven.

The NLRC denied PAL's motion for reconsideration, stating that security of tenure is considered a term or condition of employment and had been breached by PAL. The NLRC asserted its power to issue both prohibitory and mandatory injunctions under Article 218 (e) of the Labor Code and cited a previous case where the exercise of this power was upheld by the Supreme Court. The NLRC rejected PAL's argument that the employees should file separate illegal dismissal cases and deemed the injunction as the adequate remedy in this case.

PAL maintained that the alleged injury caused by the dismissals could be compensated and therefore did not warrant a temporary mandatory injunction.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether an illegal dismissal suit is an adequate remedy at law.

  2. Whether an injunction is necessary to protect the legal rights of the petitioners.

  3. Whether the petition for injunction filed by the private respondents should have been filed with the labor arbiter instead of the NLRC.

  4. Whether the NLRC exceeded its jurisdiction in granting the petition for injunction and ordering the reinstatement of the private respondents.

  5. Whether or not there is irreparable injury that necessitates the issuance of an injunction.

  6. Whether or not the Supreme Court upheld the power of the NLRC to issue temporary mandatory injunction orders.

RULING:

  1. An illegal dismissal suit is not an adequate remedy at law.

  2. The court held that while an illegal dismissal suit is available as a remedy under Article 217(a) of the Labor Code, it is not considered an "adequate" remedy at law. The Code specifically requires adequacy, not just availability, of a remedy as an alternative bar to the issuance of an injunction. Therefore, an illegal dismissal suit cannot be a bar to the exercise of the injunctive power provided under Article 218(e) of the Code.

  3. An injunction is necessary to protect the legal rights of the petitioners.

  4. The court emphasized that Article 279 of the Labor Code provides for both reinstatement and backwages as obtainable reliefs for illegal dismissal. In this case, the respondent argued that it can compensate the petitioners with backwages, but the court stressed that reinstatement is also a concern under the law. The court ruled that an injunction is necessary to require the respondent to cease and desist from enforcing its whimsical dismissals and reinstate the petitioners to their previous positions to prevent grave and irreparable injury to the petitioners.

  5. The petition for injunction should have been filed with the labor arbiter instead of the NLRC. The labor arbiter has the original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving unfair labor practice, termination disputes, claims for damages arising from employer-employee relations, and other claims exceeding P5,000. The only exceptions are when the Secretary of Labor and Employment or the NLRC exercises the power of compulsory arbitration or when the parties agree to submit the matter to voluntary arbitration.

  6. The NLRC exceeded its jurisdiction in granting the petition for injunction and ordering the reinstatement of the private respondents. The jurisdiction of the NLRC in illegal dismissal cases is appellate in nature. The NLRC does not have the blanket authority to issue writs of injunction. The proper recourse for an illegally dismissed employee is to file a complaint for illegal dismissal with the labor arbiter. The NLRC's argument that the labor arbiter's process takes too long is erroneous, as long as it provides relief appropriate to the particular circumstances of the case.

  7. The Court held that there was no irreparable injury that would require the issuance of an injunction. The respondents could be adequately compensated for their alleged illegal dismissal through reinstatement, payment of full backwages, and other benefits or their monetary equivalent. Thus, an injunction was not necessary in this case.

  8. The Court clarified that it did not sustain the action of the NLRC in issuing a temporary mandatory injunction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition due to prematurity as the NLRC had yet to rule on the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner. There was no pronouncement by the Court upholding the power of the NLRC to issue such injunctions.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Injunction is a preservative remedy for the protection of one's substantive rights or interest. It is a provisional remedy used when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious consequences that cannot be remedied through compensation.

  • In labor cases, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) has the power to issue an injunctive writ to enjoin or restrain prohibited or unlawful acts or require the performance of a particular act in any labor dispute if not doing so may cause grave or irreparable damage or render any decision ineffectual.

  • An injunction is granted in cases where there is no plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law.

  • A labor dispute refers to any controversy or matter concerning terms and conditions of employment or the association or representation of persons in negotiating employment conditions, regardless of the relationship between the parties.

  • A justiciable controversy involves an active, antagonistic assertion of a legal right on one side and a denial thereof on the other, concerning a real, not theoretical, question or issue.

  • The labor arbiter has original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving unfair labor practice, termination disputes, claims for damages arising from employer-employee relations, and other claims exceeding P5,000. Exceptions include cases of compulsory arbitration by the Secretary of Labor and Employment or the NLRC, or when the parties agree to voluntary arbitration.

  • The jurisdiction of the NLRC in illegal dismissal cases is appellate in nature.

  • The proper recourse for an illegally dismissed employee is to file a complaint for illegal dismissal with the labor arbiter.

  • An adequate remedy at law is one that affords relief with reference to the matter in controversy, is appropriate to the particular circumstances of the case, and is equally beneficial, speedy, and sufficient.

  • Preliminary injunctions or restraining orders can be issued by the labor arbiter as an incident in cases pending before him to preserve the rights of the parties.

  • Irreparable injury is one that cannot be adequately compensated in damages due to the nature of the injury itself or the nature of the right or property injured, or where there exists no certain pecuniary standard for the measurement of damages.

  • An employee who is unjustly dismissed from employment is entitled to reinstatement, without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, and full backwages.

  • Injunctions are not favored in labor law and are only issued in cases of extreme necessity based on legal grounds clearly established, after due consultations or hearing, and when all efforts at conciliation are exhausted.

  • The policy of the State is to encourage non-judicial processes such as negotiation, compromise, mediation, and arbitration in settling labor disputes.