Flight Attendants vs.

PAL, July 22, 2008 –Reversed

GR 178083, March 13,2018

FACTS: In July 1998, PAL retrenched cabin crew personnel in a retrenchment and demotion scheme. PAL
adopted the retrenchment scheme to cut costs and mitigate huge financial losses as a result of a
downturn in the airline industry brought about by the Asian financial crisis. In June 1998, PAL was placed
under corporate rehabilitation and a rehabilitation plan was approved per Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC).

Petitioner Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP), the duly certified
collective bargaining representative of the PAL cabin crew personnel, filed a Complaint against PAL for
illegal retrenchment, among others.

The Labor Arbiter found the retrenchment illegal. However, the NLRC set aside the Labor Arbiter’s
findings of illegal retrenchment, which was affirmed by the CA.

FASAP thus appealed to the Supreme Court (SC). Resolving the appeal of FASAP, the Third Division of the
SC promulgated its decision on 22 July 2008 reversing the CA decision and entering a new one finding
PAL guilty of unlawful retrenchment.

The SC Third Division differed from the CA decision which had pronounced that the remaining issue
between the parties concerned the manner by which PAL had carried out the retrenchment program.
Instead, the Third Division disbelieved the veracity of PAL’s claim of severe financial losses, and
concluded that PAL had not established its severe financial losses because of its non-presentation of
audited financial statements. It further concluded that PAL had implemented the retrenchment program
in bad faith, and had not used fair and reasonable criteria in selecting the employees to be retrenched.

After PAL filed its Motion for Reconsideration, the Court, upon motion, held oral arguments. Upon
conclusion of the oral arguments, the Court directed the parties to explore a possible settlement and to
submit their respective memoranda. Unfortunately, the parties did not reach any settlement; hence, the
Court, through the Special Third Division, resolved the issues on the merits in a resolution on 2 October
2009, denying PAL’s motion for reconsideration.

Not satisfied, PAL filed the Motion for Reconsideration of the 2 October 2009 Resolution and Second
Motion for Reconsideration of the 22 July 2008 Decision.

Certain developments led to the successive transfers of the instant petition which eventually resulted in
its transfer to the Second Division. On 7 September 2011, the Second Division denied with finality PAL’s
Second Motion for Reconsideration of the 22 July 2008 Decision.

The Court En Banc later issued a resolution wherein they assumed jurisdiction over the instant petition
and recalled the 7 September 2011 resolution of the Second Division, among others.
FASAP then filed a Motion for Reconsideration praying to reinstate the 7 September 2011 resolution.
FASAP contends that PAL failed to prove that it had complied with the requirements for a valid
retrenchment by not submitting its audited financial statements; that PAL had immediately terminated
the employees without prior resort to less drastic measures; and that PAL did not observe any criteria in
selecting the employees to be retrenched, among others.

PAL insists that FASAP, while admitting PAL’s serious financial condition, only questioned before the
Labor Arbiter the alleged unfair and unreasonable measures in retrenching the employees; that FASAP
categorically manifested before the NLRC, the CA and the Supreme Court that PAL’s financial situation
was not the issue but rather the manner of terminating the 1,400 cabin crew. PAL also insisted that
being placed under suspension of payments and corporate rehabilitation and receivership, and its
rehabilitation plan having been approved by the SEC, already sufficiently indicated its grave financial
condition.

ISSUE(S):

1. Whether or not submission of audited financial statement is required when complainants admitted
the loss.
2. Whether or not the retrenchment of the 1,400 cabin crew personnel was valid.

RULING:

1. No, PAL’s serious financial losses were duly established. The Court held that FASAP averred in its
position paper that it was not opposed to the retrenchment program because it understood PAL’s
financial troubles; and that it was only questioning the manner and lack of standard in carrying out
the retrenchment. Evidently, FASAP’s express recognition of PAL’s grave financial situation meant
that such situation no longer needed to be proved, the same having become a judicial admission in
the context of the issues between the parties. As a rule, admissions made by parties in the
pleadings, or in the course of the trial or other proceedings in the same case are conclusive, and do
not require further evidence to prove them. By FASAP’s admission of PAL’s severe financial woes,
PAL was relieved of its burden to prove its dire financial condition to justify the retrenchment.
Thusly, PAL should not be taken to task for the non-submission of its audited financial statements in
the early part of the proceedings inasmuch as the non-submission had been rendered irrelevant.

The Court ruled that the 22 July 2008 decision ignored the judicial admission and unfairly focused on
the lack of evidence of Pal’s financial losses. The Court held that the Special Third Division should
have realized that PAL had been discharged of its duty to prove its precarious fiscal situation in the
face of FASAP’s admission of such situation. PAL did not have to submit the audited financial
statements because its being in financial distress was not in issue at all.

The 22 July 2008 decision recognized that PAL underwent corporate rehabilitation. In seeming
inconsistency, however, the Special Third Division refused to accept that PAL had incurred serious
 financial losses. Indeed, that a company undergoes rehabilitation sufficiently indicates its fragile
financial condition.

After having been placed under corporate rehabilitation and its rehabilitation plan having been
approved by the SEC, PAL’s dire financial predicament could not be doubted. The Court also pointed
out that the SEC’s order of approval came a week after PAL had sent out notices of termination to
the affected employees. It is thus difficult to ignore the fact that PAL had then been experiencing
difficulty in meeting its financial obligations long before its rehabilitation.

The Court held that the presentation of the audited financial statements should not the sole means
by which to establish the employer's serious financial losses. The presentation of audited financial
statements, although convenient in proving the unilateral claim of financial losses, is not required
for all cases of retrenchment. The Court held that the evidence required for each case of
retrenchment will depend on its particular circumstances.

Thus, the Court ruled that requiring a distressed corporation placed under rehabilitation or
receivership to still submit its audited financial statements is unnecessary or superfluous.

2. Yes, PAL implemented a valid retrenchment program. Retrenchment or downsizing is a mode of

Article 298 of the Labor Code provides that the employer may terminate the employment of any
employee due to the installation of labor saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent
losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking.

Accordingly, the employer may resort to retrenchment in order to avert serious business losses. To
justify such retrenchment, the following conditions must be present, namely:

1) The retrenchment must be reasonably necessary and likely to prevent business losses;
2) The losses, if already incurred, are not merely de minimis, but substantial, serious, actual
and real, or, if only expected, are reasonably imminent;
3) The expected or actual losses must be proved by sufficient and convincing evidence;
4) The retrenchment must be in good faith for the advancement of its interest and not to
defeat or circumvent the employees' right to security of tenure; and
 5) There must be fair and reasonable criteria m ascertaining who would be dismissed and who
would be retained among the employees, such as status, efficiency, seniority, physical
fitness, age, and financial hardship for certain workers.

Upon a critical review of the records, the Court was convinced that PAL had met all the standards in
effecting a valid retrenchment. The Court has already ruled that PAL’s serious financial losses were
duly established.

As to the good faith to be observed by PAL, the Court ruled that PAL could not have been motivated
by ill will or bad faith when it decided to terminate FASAP’s affected members. On the contrary, it
held that good faith could be justly inferred from PAL’s conduct before, during and after the
implementation of the retrenchment plan. The Court regarded PAL’s candor towards FASAP
regarding its plan to implement the retrenchment program, as evinced in PAL’s letter inviting FASAP
to a meeting to discuss the matter. The records also show that the parties met on several occasions
to explore cost-cutting measures, including the implementation of the retrenchment program. PAL
likewise manifested that the retrenchment plan was temporarily shelved while it implemented
other measures (like termination of probationary cabin attendant, and work-rotations).Good faith
could also be inferred from PAL’s compliance with the basic requirements under- Article 298 of the
LaborCode prior to laying-off its affected employees.

The Court also held that PAL used fair and reasonable criteria in selecting the employees to be
retrenched pursuant to the CBA. In selecting the employees to be dismissed, the employer is
required to adopt fair and reasonable criteria. The requirement of fair and reasonable criteria is
imposed on the employer to preclude the occurrence of arbitrary selection of employees to be
retrenched. Absent any showing of bad faith, the choice of who should be retrenched must be
conceded to the employer for as long as a basis for the retrenchment exists. The Court will only
strike down the retrenchment of an employee as capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, and prejudicial in
the absence of a clear-cut and uniform guideline followed by the employer in selecting him or her
from the work pool. Following this standard, PAL validly implemented its retrenchment program.
PAL resorted to both efficiency rating and inverse seniority in selecting the employees to be subject
of termination, which shows that PAL sufficiently established the criteria for the selection of the
employees to be laid off. The Court held that for as long as PAL followed a rational criteria defined or
set by the CBA and existing laws and jurisprudence in determining who should be included in the
retrenchment program., it sufficiently met the standards of fairess and reason in its implementation
of its retrenchment program.