FACTS:
This case involves a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition filed by petitioners against public respondents regarding the enforcement of an agreement between Philippine Airlines (PAL) and its union, the PAL Employees Association (PALEA). The dispute arose from the retrenchment measures adopted by PAL after suffering financial losses caused by strikes by pilots and later by PALEA members. The government created an Inter-Agency Task Force to address PAL's problems and conciliation meetings were held. PAL management offered to transfer shares of stock to its employees, which was accepted by the PALEA board but rejected by union members. PAL eventually shut down its operations, leading to PALEA seeking intervention from the Office of the President and agreeing to a referendum on PAL's offer. Majority of PALEA members rejected the offer and PAL ceased its operations. PALEA then proposed new terms and conditions which were accepted by PAL and ratified in a referendum. PALEA members filed a petition to annul the agreement, alleging that public respondents exceeded their jurisdiction and violated constitutional rights to self-organization and collective bargaining.
ISSUES:
-
Is an original action for certiorari and prohibition the proper remedy to annul the PAL-PALEA agreement of September 27, 1998?
-
Is the PAL-PALEA agreement of September 27, 1998, stipulating the suspension of the PAL-PALEA CBA unconstitutional and contrary to public policy?
-
Whether the agreement between Philippine Airlines (PAL) and the Philippine Airlines Employees Association (PALEA) for a 10-year suspension of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) violates the workers' constitutional right to bargain for another CBA at the mandated time.
-
Whether the 10-year suspension of the CBA amounts to unfair labor practice and violates the five-year representation limit mandated by Article 253-A of the Labor Code.
RULING:
-
An original action for certiorari and prohibition is not the proper remedy to annul the PAL-PALEA agreement of September 27, 1998. The agreement is not the act of a tribunal, board, officer, or person exercising judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions. Therefore, the essential requisites for a petition for certiorari and prohibition are not present. Furthermore, petitioners have an available plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, which is an ordinary civil action for annulment of contract before the regional trial courts.
-
The PAL-PALEA agreement of September 27, 1998, is not unconstitutional and contrary to public policy. The agreement is a contract between a private firm and one of its labor unions, albeit entered into with the assistance of the Task Force. The Court determines that the subject matter involves industrial peace in the nation's premier airline and flag carrier, which is a national concern. While the Court should not review factual issues raised in a special civil action for certiorari, it will examine the substance of the petition in the interest of justice and the public interest involved.
-
The Supreme Court held that the agreement between PAL and PALEA for a 10-year suspension of the CBA does not violate the workers' constitutional right to bargain for another CBA at the mandated time. The Court considered the severe financial situation faced by PAL and the unique intention of preventing its closure. It found no conflict between the agreement and Article 253-A of the Labor Code, which promotes industrial stability and predictability. Nothing in Article 253-A prohibits the parties from waiving or suspending the mandatory timetables and agreeing on the remedies to enforce the same. The Court further emphasized that it was PALEA, as the exclusive bargaining agent, that voluntarily entered into the CBA and opted for the suspension.
-
The Court ruled that the 10-year suspension of the CBA, as provided in the PAL-PALEA agreement, does not amount to unfair labor practice and does not violate the five-year representation limit mandated by Article 253-A of the Labor Code. The agreement includes provisions for union security during the suspension period, aiming to assure the continued existence of PALEA. Such provisions do not violate the objective of union security, which is supported by State policy promoting unionism and workers' rights. The Court also noted that there was no evidence of PAL's initiation, domination, assistance, or interference with the formation or administration of PALEA, which would establish it as a company union. Furthermore, the representation limit for the exclusive bargaining agent applies only when there is an extant CBA in full force and effect, which was suspended in this case.
PRINCIPLES:
-
A collective bargaining agreement (CBA) is a contract executed upon request of either the employer or the exclusive bargaining representative, incorporating the agreement reached after negotiations with respect to wages, hours of work, and all other terms and conditions of employment.
-
The primary purpose of a CBA is the stabilization of labor-management relations in order to create a climate of sound and stable industrial peace.
-
In construing a CBA, the courts must be practical and realistic and give due consideration to the context in which it is negotiated and the purpose which it is intended to serve.
-
Parties to a CBA may voluntarily waive or suspend the mandatory timetables and agree on remedies to enforce the same.
-
Union security provisions in a CBA are not unfair labor practices but instead promote unionism and protect workers' rights and interests.
-
The representation limit for the exclusive bargaining agent applies only when there is an extant CBA in full force and effect.