You're currently signed in as:
User

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

2013-08-14
PEREZ, J.
On 18 July 2005, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision[5] dismissing the complaint for illegal dismissal. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
2012-03-13
BRION, J.
Justice Mendoza (replacing Justice Bienvenido Reyes who was on leave[19]).
2009-09-08
PERALTA, J.
In Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines v. Philippines Airlines, Inc.,[25] we have stated the nature, justification and requisites of a valid retrenchment, to wit: The law recognizes the right of every business entity to reduce its work force if the same is made necessary by compelling economic factors which would endanger its existence or stability. Where appropriate and where conditions are in accord with law and jurisprudence, the Court has authorized valid reductions in the work force to forestall business losses, the hemorrhaging of capital, or even to recognize an obvious reduction in the volume of business which has rendered certain employees redundant.
2009-01-20
CARPIO MORALES, J.
Case law recognizes that unless there is a restraining order, the implementation of the order of reinstatement is ministerial and mandatory.[32] This injunction or suspension of claims by legislative fiat[33] partakes of the nature of a restraining order that constitutes a legal justification for respondent's non-compliance with the reinstatement order. Respondent's failure to exercise the alternative options of actual reinstatement and payroll reinstatement was thus justified. Such being the case, respondent's obligation to pay the salaries pending appeal, as the normal effect of the non-exercise of the options, did not attach.