G.R. No. 166996 September 3, 2008
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INCORPORATED, FRANCISCO X. YNGENTE IV, PAG-ASA C. RAMOS, JESUS FEDERICO V. VIRAY, RICARDO D. ABUYUAN, petitioners, vs. BERNARDIN J. ZAMORA, respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Bernardin J. Zamora was employed by petitioner Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) on February 9, 1981. In December 1993, he alleged he was instructed by his supervisor, petitioner Ricardo D. Abuyuan, to alter entries in a Customs Boatnote to conceal smuggling and pilferage; upon his refusal, an administrative case for insubordination and neglect of customers was filed against him. On November 6, 1995, Zamora received a transfer order to Domestic Cargo Operations, which he refused, citing lack of just cause and violation of the CBA. He later exposed alleged illegal activities at the Import Operations Division. Starting December 15, 1995, his salaries were withheld. PAL countered that Zamora’s dismissal was for cause due to insubordination, neglect, disrespect, and absence without official leave (AWOL). Zamora filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, but the NLRC reversed this on July 26, 1999, ordering Zamora’s immediate reinstatement. PAL filed a petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 56428, later elevated to the Supreme Court as G.R. No. 164267). Meanwhile, Zamora moved for execution of the reinstatement order. The Labor Arbiter found PAL in indirect contempt for non-compliance. On appeal, the NLRC, in a Resolution dated April 27, 2001, set aside the contempt finding but ordered execution, amending its earlier decision to award separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. In a subsequent Decision dated October 31, 2001, the NLRC suspended the proceedings due to PAL’s ongoing rehabilitation. Zamora assailed these NLRC rulings before the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 68795. The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated August 13, 2004, annulled the NLRC rulings and affirmed the July 26, 1999 NLRC Decision. However, in an Amended Decision dated February 1, 2005, it deleted the reinstatement order and directed payment of separation pay instead, noting Zamora’s subsequent imprisonment for murder and, later, his death on January 9, 2005. PAL’s rehabilitation was concluded on September 28, 2007. PAL et al. filed the present Petition for Review.

ISSUE

The primary issue is the propriety of the Court of Appeals’ Amended Decision which ordered the payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement and referred Zamora’s monetary claims to the PAL Rehabilitation Receiver, in light of Zamora’s death and the conclusion of PAL’s rehabilitation.

RULING

The Supreme Court resolved to suspend the proceedings in the instant petition. It found that the issues presented are intimately intertwined with those in G.R. No. 164267, which is pending before the Court’s Second Division. Both cases originate from the same set of facts, involve identical parties, and assert identical rights. A judgment in one case may amount to res judicata in the other. The core issue in G.R. No. 164267 is the propriety of the finding of illegality of Zamora’s dismissal, which is the root of all subsequent issues in the present case, including the propriety of ordering separation pay in lieu of reinstatement following Zamora’s death. To avoid the possibility of conflicting decisions and to serve the orderly administration of justice, the Court disinclined from resolving this petition alone and suspended the proceedings pending resolution of G.R. No. 164267.