Labor
TLa
G.R. No. 181995
BIBIANO C. ELEGIR, petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., respondent. July 16, 2012
Doctrine:
The Court ruled that both Article 287 and PAL’s retirement plans are alternative in nature and the retired pilot only is entitled to which have the superior benefits. Article 287 of the Labor Code is applicable only to a situation where: there is no CBA or other applicable employment contract providing for retirement benefits for an employee, or if there is a CBA or other applicable employment contract providing for retirement benefits for an employee, but it is below the requirement set by law. The rationale for the first situation is to prevent the absurd situation where an employee, deserving to receive retirement benefits, is denied them through the nefarious scheme of employers to deprive employees of the benefits due them under existing labor laws. On the other hand, the second situation aims to prevent private contracts from derogating from the public law. The determining factor in choosing which retirement scheme to apply is still superiority in terms of benefits provided. Thus, even if there is an existing CBA but the same does not provide for retirement benefits equal or superior to that which is provided under Article 287 of the Labor Code, the latter will apply. In this manner, the employee can be assured of a reasonable amount of retirement pay for his sustenance. The Court also ordered petitioner to reimburse PAL with the costs of his training. It applied the ruling set forth in the case of Almario v. Philippine Airlines, Inc, which the Court in this case recognized the right of PAL to recoup the costs of a pilot’s training in the form of service for a period of at least three (3) years. This right emanated from the CBA between PAL and ALPAP, which must be complied with good faith by the parties. In the same case, the Court considered PAL’s act of sending its crew for training as an investment which expects an equitable
G.R. No. 181995
BIBIANO C. ELEGIR, petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., respondent. July 16, 2012
Doctrine:
The Court ruled that both Article 287 and PAL’s retirement plans are alternative in nature and the retired pilot only is entitled to which have the superior benefits. Article 287 of the Labor Code is applicable only to a situation where: there is no CBA or other applicable employment contract providing for retirement benefits for an employee, or if there is a CBA or other applicable employment contract providing for retirement benefits for an employee, but it is below the requirement set by law. The rationale for the first situation is to prevent the absurd situation where an employee, deserving to receive retirement benefits, is denied them through the nefarious scheme of employers to deprive employees of the benefits due them under existing labor laws. On the other hand, the second situation aims to prevent private contracts from derogating from the public law. The determining factor in choosing which retirement scheme to apply is still superiority in terms of benefits provided. Thus, even if there is an existing CBA but the same does not provide for retirement benefits equal or superior to that which is provided under Article 287 of the Labor Code, the latter will apply. In this manner, the employee can be assured of a reasonable amount of retirement pay for his sustenance. The Court also ordered petitioner to reimburse PAL with the costs of his training. It applied the ruling set forth in the case of Almario v. Philippine Airlines, Inc, which the Court in this case recognized the right of PAL to recoup the costs of a pilot’s training in the form of service for a period of at least three (3) years. This right emanated from the CBA between PAL and ALPAP, which must be complied with good faith by the parties. In the same case, the Court considered PAL’s act of sending its crew for training as an investment which expects an equitable