Byline: Rey G. Panaligan

The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the rulings of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) that ordered Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) to reinstate 24 attendants who were dismissed by their contractor in 1998 in violation of

In a decision written by Justice Conchita Carpio Morales, the SC said that PAL should pay the wages and benefits due the attendants detailed at the Mactan airport in Cebu as regular employes in addition to the salary differential or the difference between the wages and benefits given them and those granted to other regular employes of the same rank.

Ordered reinstated as PAL regular employes were Enrique Ligan, Emelita Soco, Allan Panque, Jolito Oliveros, Richard Goncer, Nonilon Pilapil, Aquilino Ybanez, Bernabe Sandoval, Ruel Goncer, Virgilio P. Campos, Jr., Arthur M. Capin, Ramel Bernardes, Lorenzo Butanas, Benson Caresusa, Jefrey Llenos, Roque Pilapil, Antonio M. Pareja, Clemente R. Lumayno, Nelson Tampus, Rolando Tunacao, Cherrie Alegres, Eduardo Magdadaraug, Nelson M. Dulce and Allan Bentuzal.

"The Court affirms the ruling of both the NLRC and the CA ordering petitioner (PAL) to accept them as its regular employees and to give each of them salaries, allowances and other employment benefits and privileges of a regular employee under the pertinent Collective Bargaining Agreement," the SC ruled.

"There being no data from which this court may determine the monetary liabilities of petitioner, the case is remanded to the labor arbiter solely for that purpose," it stressed.

In its petition, PAL claimed that it could not comply with the orders of the NLRC and the CA because during the pendency of the case it was forced to reduce its personnel due to heavy losses caused by the economic crisis and the pilots' strike of June 5, 1998, and that there were no positions available to accommodate the attendants.

PAL added that the employment contracts of most of the attendants were terminated in 1998 by the contractor, Synergy Services Corp., after its contract with the firm was rescinded.

But the SC said the termination of the employment of the attendants was a violation of its 1996 temporary restraining order (TRO).

"Finally, it must be stressed that respondents (attendants) -- having been declared to be regular employees of petitioner (PAL) and Synergy being a mere agent of the latter -- had acquired security of tenure. As such, they can only be dismissed by petitioner, the real employer, on the basis of just or authorized cause and with observance of procedural due process," the SC pointed out.

Justices Antonio T. Carpio, Adolfo S. Azcuna, Dante O. Tinga and Presbitero J. Velasco Jr. concurred with the decision.