Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE , premises considered, the " Petition for Declaratory Relief with Prayer for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order [and] Writ for Preliminary Injunction " is hereby GRANTED. Judgment is hereby rendered in favor of petitioners Patricia Halagueña, Ma. Angelita L. Pulido, Ma.
Accordingly, Halagueña et al. moved for the revival of the archived case before the trial court and for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. However, the trial court held in abeyance any further proceedings until the decision of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 172013 attained finality. After PAL's Motion for Reconsideration was denied with finality, the trial court, in a February 18, 2010 Order, granted Halagueña et al.'s Motion to Revive with Urgent Motion for the Issuance of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction. [21] On March 8, 2010, the trial court denied the Motion for Status Quo Order filed by Halagueña et al. [22] However, on July 19, 2010, it granted the application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction which was issued on July 30, 2010. [23] Halagueña et al. thereafter filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration praying that the cabin attendants affected by the questioned compulsory retirement provision be reinstated and given flight schedules. They also filed a Supplemental Motion listing names of retired cabin attendants and praying for their reinstatement. PAL filed its opposition to the said Motions which Halagueña et al. countered with a Reply. [24] In its December 2, 2010 Order, the trial court granted the lifting of the writ of preliminary injunction subject to PAL' s posting of a bond and denied the motions filed by Halagueña et al. for lack of merit. [25] In subsequent Orders, the trial court approved the counter bond posted by PAL and ordered the lifting and setting aside of the writ of preliminary injunction. [26] In its May 22, 2015 Decision, the trial court granted the petition for declaratory relief and declared Section 144(A) of the PAL-FASAP 2000-2005 CBA null and void for being discriminatory. The dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the " Petition for Declaratory Relief with Prayer for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order [and] Writ for Preliminary Injunction " is hereby GRANTED. Judgment is hereby rendered in favor of petitioners Patricia Halagueña, Ma. Angelita L. Pulido, Ma. Teresita P. Santiago, Marianne V. Katindig, Bernadette A. Cabalquinto, Lorna B. Tugas, Mary Christine A. Villarte, Cythia A. Stehmeier, Rose Ana G. Victa, Noemi R. Cersencio and other female flight attendants of Philippine Airlines and against respondent Philippine Airlines, Inc., as follows: a. Declaring Section 144 of the PAL-FASAL 200[0]-2005 CBA provision null and void for being discriminatory; b. Ordering respondent PAL to pay petitioners the following sums: 1. Php 100,000.00 for each of the petitioners in this case; and 2.Php 200,000.00 as Attorney's Fees. c. Pay the cost of the suit. SO ORDERED . [27] (Emphasis in the original) In ruling favorably for Halagueña et al., the trial court held that Section 144(A) of the PAL-FASAP 2000-2005 CBA violates the Constitution, the Labor Code, and the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women for being discrimin