G.R. No. 218984, January 24, 2018
ARMANDO M. TOLENTINO (deceased), represented by MERLA F. TOLENTINO, et al., Petitioners, vs. PHILIPPINES AIRLINES, INC., Respondent.

FACTS

Armando Tolentino was a PAL pilot and a member of the Airline Pilots Association of the Philippines (ALPAP). On June 5, 1998, ALPAP went on strike. The Secretary of Labor issued a return-to-work order on June 7, 1998. Tolentino defied this order and continued striking. When he attempted to return on June 26, 1998, PAL refused readmission. The Secretary of Labor later declared the strike illegal, and participants who defied the order were deemed to have lost their employment status, a ruling affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2002.
Subsequently, Tolentino reapplied with PAL as a new hire on July 20, 1998, undergoing a probationary period. He resigned less than a year later, on July 16, 1999. Years later, Tolentino sought payment of separation and retirement benefits under the old CBA from his first period of employment. PAL refused. Tolentino filed a complaint for non-payment of various benefits, which was dismissed by the Labor Arbiter, a decision affirmed by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, however, modified the ruling, awarding Tolentino accrued vacation leave pay. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether Tolentino is entitled to separation pay, retirement benefits, and other monetary claims from his first period of employment with PAL.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision. The legal logic is clear: Tolentino’s participation in an illegal strike and his defiance of a valid return-to-work order constituted a valid cause for termination under Article 264 of the Labor Code. Consequently, he lost his employment status as of June 9, 1998, and was not illegally dismissed. Separation pay is not due to an employee validly dismissed for cause.
Regarding retirement benefits, the Court ruled that Tolentino did not meet the eligibility requirements under the applicable CBA and the PAL Pilots’ Retirement Benefit Plan after his rehire. His resignation in 1999 occurred less than a year after his re-employment, far short of any required continuous service period. His prior service from 1971 to 1998 could not be tacked to his new probationary employment, as he was considered a new hire upon his voluntary reapplication. The Court found no reversible error in the denial of damages and attorney’s fees. The award of accrued vacation leave, unappealed by PAL, was left undisturbed.