PAL vs. Joselito Pascua et al. G.R. No. 143258, August 15, 2003

FACTS: In April, August and September 1992, petitioner hired private respondents as station attendants on a four or six-hour work-shift a day at five to six days a week. The primary duties of the private respondents were to load and unload cargo from PAL flights as well as those of Cathay Pacific, Northwest Airlines and Thai Airlines were PAL had service agreements. On certain occasions, PAL compelled private respondents to work overtime due to urgent necessity. Contracts with private respondents were extended twice, the last being for an indefinite period. On February 3, 1994, private respondent in his and on behalf of 79 other part-time station attendants filed with the DOLE complaint for regularization. During the pendency of the case, PAL president Jose Garcia and PAL Chairman Carlos Dominguez converted the status of private respondents from temporary part-time to regular part-time. On February 24, 1995, private respondents dropped their money claim before the Office of Labor Arbiter Guanio, leaving for consideration their complaint for regularization. Labor Arbiter then dismissed private respondents petition for being “moot and academic” since they have now been declared regular part-time.

On appeal, NLRC ruled in favor of private respondents, ordering PAL to regularize private respondents with an 8-hour work shift, CA affirmed NLRC’s decision.

ISSUE: (1) Did petitioner’s act of converting respondents’ status from temporary to regular employees render the original complaint for “regularization” moot and academic? (2) Did the appellate court err when it upheld the decision of the NLRC TO accord respondents regular full-time employment although petitioner, in the exercise of its management prerogative, requires only part-time servces?

RULING: (1) No, the petitioner only converted the private respondent’s status from temporary part-time to regular part-time. Indeed, the OSG in its comment to the petition filed with the CA declared: “…despite lack of preciseness, private respondents were, in fact, ultimately assailing their part-time status, not just the retroactive date of their regularization as part-time employees.” In addition, in the same comment the OSG discovered that “…even petitioner understood the heart of the appeal when it observed in their Answer to Appeal that ‘all they wanted is to be converted to full time status.’” Private respondents repeatedly said “regular employees,” not specifying whether it is regular part-time or regular full-time, but a reading of the intention of the entirety of all their pleadings will reveal they wanted to be regular full-time, asserting that they actually work more than 8-hours a day. (2) No, CA did not err in affirming NLRC’s decision since management prerogative is not absolute since it could not be used to circumvent the law and public policy on labor and social justice. In addition, decision was based on substantial evidence being consistent with law, public policy, fair play and good faith.Petition is denied, CA ruling affirmed.