This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-11-28 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| On January 25, 2002, the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the SSS, filed its appellant's brief[22] in CA-G.R. CV No. 70928. It asserted that the trial court erred in directing the SSS to execute a deed of absolute sale in favor of MMGHI and Atty. Mangondato despite the nullity of the conditional sale.[23] It also claimed that the trial court erred in holding the SSS liable for actual damages, moral damages, attorney's fees, and costs of litigation.[24] | |||||
|
2012-07-16 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| As regards the issue of whether the petitioner should be obliged to reimburse PAL with the costs of his training, the ruling in Almario v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.[28] is controlling. Essentially, in the mentioned case, this Court 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. Thus: "The CBA is the law between the contracting parties the collective bargaining representative and the employer-company. Compliance with a CBA is mandated by the expressed policy to give protection to labor. In the same vein, CBA provisions should be "construed liberally rather than narrowly and technically, and the courts must place a practical and realistic construction upon it, giving due consideration to the context in which it is negotiated and purpose which it is intended to serve." This is founded on the dictum that a CBA is not an ordinary contract but one impressed with public interest. It goes without saying, however, that only provisions embodied in the CBA should be so interpreted and complied with. Where a proposal raised by a contracting party does not find print in the CBA, it is not a part thereof and the proponent has no claim whatsoever to its implementation." | |||||