Defiance and Dismissal: Understanding Illegal Strikes and Return-to-Work Orders in the Philippines

The Supreme Court, in Almagro v. Philippine Airlines, Inc. (G.R. No. 204803, September 12, 2018), settled a long-running dispute: employees who participate in an illegal strike and defy a return-to-work order may validly lose their employment. The case involved former pilots of Philippine Airlines (PAL) who insisted they were on official leave during the strike. The Court, however, held that their belated return on June 26, 1998—after the deadline set by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Secretary—was enough to establish their participation in the illegal strike and their defiance of the return-to-work order.

The 1998 PAL Strike and Its Legal Aftermath

The dispute traces back to the 1990s labor conflict between PAL and the Airline Pilots Association of the Philippines (ALPAP). On December 9, 1997, ALPAP filed a notice of strike on grounds of unfair labor practice and union-busting. The DOLE Secretary assumed jurisdiction over the dispute on December 23, 1997, which strictly prohibited any strike or lockout.

Despite this, ALPAP declared and commenced a strike on June 5, 1998. The Secretary issued a return-to-work order on June 7, 1998, addressed to all striking officers and members, with a deadline of June 9, 1998. The strike continued until June 26, 1998, when ALPAP members attempted to report for work. PAL refused to accept them, saying the deadline had lapsed.

The Secretary eventually declared that all officers and members who participated in the strike in defiance of the return-to-work order had lost their employment status. This ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court in a prior case, Airline Pilots Association of the Philippines v. Philippine Airlines, Inc. (G.R. No. 168382), which also identified the pilots who returned after the deadline through their signatures in PAL's security logbook.

The Pilots' Defense: Official Leave

The petitioners—former senior pilots Salvador Almagro, Basilio Cruz, Francisco Juliano, Arturo Novenario, and the heirs of Demosthenes Cañete—filed illegal dismissal complaints against PAL. They argued that they were on approved official leaves during the strike and could not have participated in it. They claimed their signatures on the logbook were not admissions of participation but merely an attempt to regain employment. They also argued they were not bound by the earlier rulings because they were not parties to those cases.

The Court's Ruling: Conclusiveness of Judgment and Stare Decisis

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the dismissal of the pilots' complaints. The Court applied two key doctrines:

Conclusiveness of judgment (collateral estoppel). Under Section 47(c), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, a fact or issue directly adjudicated in a prior final judgment between the same parties or their privies cannot be relitigated in a subsequent case involving a different cause of action. The Court found that the issue of who participated in the illegal strike and defied the return-to-work order was already settled in Airline Pilots. The logbook bearing the pilots' signatures was described as a "crucial and vital piece of evidence" that established their participation. Since the petitioners all signed the logbook on June 26, 1998, they were covered by that finding.

Stare decisis. The Court also noted that the principle of adhering to precedents applied. In Rodriguez v. Philippine Airlines, Inc. (G.R. Nos. 178501 & 178510, January 11, 2016), the Court applied the same doctrines to 24 other pilots who raised identical defenses. The petitioners in this case raised the same arguments, and the evidence was the same logbook. There was no "powerful countervailing consideration" to depart from these settled rulings.

Why the Pilots' Defenses Failed

The Court rejected the pilots' arguments on several grounds:

• The logbook was substantial evidence. Signing the "Return to Work Compliance/Returnees" logbook on June 26, 1998—after the June 9 deadline—was an admission that they were among those who defied the return-to-work order.
• The leave defense was raised too late. In Airline Pilots, the Court noted that no ALPAP member claimed to be on leave or abroad during the strike until after the judgment became final. These defenses were a "last ditch effort" to obtain a favorable ruling.
• The union represented its members. ALPAP acted on behalf of all its members in the earlier cases. The union and the individual pilots shared an identity of interest—reinstatement—which made them privies-in-law, satisfying the requirement of substantial identity of parties.

Practical Takeaways

• A return-to-work order is not a suggestion. When the DOLE Secretary assumes jurisdiction over a labor dispute and issues a return-to-work order, defiance of that order can result in loss of employment status.
• Participating in an illegal strike has serious consequences. Employees who join a strike declared illegal may be validly dismissed, especially if they defy a return-to-work order.
• Belated compliance may not save your job. Reporting for work after the deadline imposed by a return-to-work order may be treated as an admission of participation in the illegal strike.
• Final judgments bind union members. Individual employees may be bound by rulings in cases filed by their union, under the doctrines of conclusiveness of judgment and stare decisis, even if they were not named parties.
• Raise defenses early. Defenses like being on official leave must be raised promptly during proceedings, not after judgments become final.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.