G.R. No. 178083 - FLIGHT ATTENDANTS AND STEWARDS ASSOCIATION OF THEPHILIPPINES (FASAP), VS. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., PATRIA CHIONG AND COURT OF APPEALS. DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, it submitted an amended rehabilitation plan to the SEC with a proposed revised business and financial restructuring plan, which required the infusion of US$200 million in new equity into the airline. On May 17, 1999, the SEC approved the proposed "Amended and Restated Rehabilitation Plan" of PAL and appointed a permanent rehabilitation receiver for the latter. [21] On June 7, 1999, the SEC issued an Order confirming its approval of the "Amended and Restated Rehabilitation Plan" of PAL. In said order, the cash infusion of US$200 million made by Lucio Tan on June 4, 1999 was acknowledged. [22] On October 4, 2007, PAL officially exited receivership; thus, our ruling in Philippine Air Lines v. Kurangking [23] no longer applies. On June 22, 1998, FASAP filed a Complaint [24] against PAL and Patria T. Chiong [25] (Chiong) for unfair labor practice, illegal retrenchment with claims for reinstatement and payment of salaries, allowances and backwages of affected FASAP members, actual, moral and exemplary damages with a prayer to enjoin the retrenchment program then being implemented. Instead of a position paper, respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss and/or Consolidation with NCMB Case No. NS 12-514-97 pending with the Office of the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment and/or Suspension and Referral of Claims to the interim rehabilitation proceedings (motion to dismiss). [26] On July 6, 1998, FASAP filed its Comment to respondents' motion to dismiss. On July 23, 1998, the Labor Arbiter issued an Order [27] denying respondents' motion to dismiss; granting a writ of preliminary injunction against PAL's implementation of its retrenchment program with respect to FASAP members; setting aside the respective notices of retrenchment addressed to the cabin crew; directing respondents to restore the said retrenched cabin crew to their positions and PAL's payroll until final determination of the case; and directing respondents to file their position paper. Respondents appealed to the NLRC which reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. The NLRC directed the lifting of the writ of injunction and to vacate the directive setting aside the notices of retrenchment and reinstating the dismissed cabin crew to their respective positions and in the PAL payroll. [28] FASAP filed its Position Paper [29] on September 28, 1999. On November 8, 1999, respondents filed their Position Paper [30] with counterclaims against FASAP, to which FASAP filed its Reply. [31] Thereafter, the parties were directed to file their respective Memoranda. [32] Meanwhile, instead of being dismissed in accordance with the Kurangking case, the FASAP case (NLRC-NCR Case No. 06-05100-98) was consolidated with the following cases: Ramon and Marian Joy Camahort v. PAL, et al. (NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-07-05854-98); Erlinda Arevalo and Chonas Santos v. PAL, et al. (NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-07-09793-98); and Victor Lanza v. PAL, et al. (NLRC-NCR Case No.00-04-04254-99). On July 21, 2000,