PAL v NLRC

G.R. 55159 Dec. 22, 1989

Facts:

Petitioner PAL admitted respondent DOLINA at their Aviation School for training as pilot with an agreement to
provide regular and permanent employment to DOLINA upon completion of the 6-month training.
DOLINA, upon finishing the 6-month training logged only 84H 55M flying time, much lower than the required
500H flying time for regularization. He was extended to complete this requirement but still failed to reach the
500H minimum. He was extended for the second time where he finished the minimum requirement and applied
for regularization.
Pending physical exam by the flight surgeon, he was extended for the third time. On the psychological exam,
he was found unacceptable in his Adaptability Rating and rendered him disqualified for regular employment.
PAL placed DOLINA on preventive suspension pending their application for clearance for the latters
termination.
DOLINA filed a complaint for illegal dismissal to which the OIC of DOLE Regional Office IV lifted the
suspension with full backwages but referred the termination and damages to the LA
PAL appealed the OICs order to Sec of Labor. Pending resolution, the parties agreed before the Undersec. Of
Labor to consider DOLINA in the payroll pending the cases final resolution by arbitration.
Two months later, Acting Sec of Labor issued an order finding the suspension moot due to the agreement. And
referred the case for arbitration. LA granted PALs termination clearance and denied claim for damages.
DOLINA appealed to NLRC, contending that LAs decision is not final due to timely appeal.
NLRC rendered decision that the termination sufficiently passed test of validity, but DOLINA should be returned
to the payroll pending the cases final resolution.
Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:
W/N NLRC commited grave abuse of discretion in holding that DOLINA is entitled to his salaries until the cases final
resolution.
HELD:

Court ruled in the AFFIRMATIVE and declared void the decision of NLRC to entitle DOLINA with wages
pending final resolution of the case and made permanent the TRO.
NLRC contended that the timely appeal of the LAs decision had not made the decision final and that the final
resolution of the case by arbitration includes the appeal. Court said NO, and that it would create an absurdity
as it would cover even those under certiorari in the court and the employee would continue to receive salary
without rendering services regardless of the outcome of the case.
Furthermore, proceedings on appeal before the NLRC cannot be considered as part of the arbitration. When the
LA renders his decision, the compulsory arbitration is deemed terminated. Any appeal of such decision is
beyond the scope of arbitration.