ERARDO F. RIVERA, ALFRED A. RAMISO, AMBROCIO PALAD, DENNIS R.

ARANAS,
DAVID SORIMA, JR., JORGE P. DELA ROSA, and ISAGANI ALDEA, petitioners,
vs.
HON. EDGARDO ESPIRITU in his capacity as Chairman of the PAL Inter-Agency
Task Force created under Administrative Order No. 16; HON. BIENVENIDO
LAGUESMA in his capacity as Secretary of Labor and Employment; PHILIPPINE
AIRLINES (PAL), LUCIO TAN, HENRY SO UY, ANTONIO V. OCAMPO, MANOLO E.
AQUINO, JAIME J. BAUTISTA, and ALEXANDER O. BARRIENTOS, respondents.

FACTS

PAL was suffering from a difficult financial situation in 1998. It was faced with
bankruptcy and was forced to adopt a rehabilitation plan and downsized its labor force by
more than one-third. PALEA (PAL Employees Association) went on a four-day strike to protest
retrenchment measures in July 1998. PAL ceased operations on September 23, 1998.

PALEA board again wrote the President on September 28, 1998. Among others, it
proposed the suspension of the PAL-PALEA CBA for a period of ten years, subject to certain
conditions. PALEA members accepted such terms through a referendum on October 2, 1998.
PAL resumed domestic operations on October 7, 1998.

Seven officers and members of PALEA filed instant petition to annul the September
27, 1998, agreement entered into between PAL and PALEA.

ISSUE

Whether or not negotiations may be suspended for ten years.

RULING

Yes. CBA negotiations may be suspended for ten years.

The assailed PAL-PALEA agreement was the result of voluntary collective bargaining
negotiations undertaken in the light of the severe financial situation faced by the employer,
with the peculiar and unique intention of not merely promoting industrial peace at PAL, but
preventing the latter’s closure.

There is no conflict between said agreement and Article 253-A of the Labor Code. CBA
under Article 253-A of the Labor Code has a two-fold purpose. One is to promote industrial
stability and predictability. Inasmuch as the agreement sought to promote industrial peace at
PAL during its rehabilitation, said agreement satisfied the first purpose of said article. The
other purpose is to assign specific timetable, wherein negotiations become a matter of right
and requirement. Nothing in Article 253-A prohibits the parties from waiving or suspending
the mandatory timetable and agreeing on the remedies to enforce the same.