G.R. No. 55159 December 22, 1989 PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., petitioner v . NA!I"NAL LA#"R RELA!

I"NS C"$$ISSI"N %n& AR$AND" D"LINA, re pon&ent . 'AC!S( Dolina was admitted to the Philippine Airlines (PAL) Aviation School for training as a pilot beginning 16 Januar 1!"#$ %he training agreement bound PAL to provide regular and permanent emplo ment to Dolina upon completion of the training course$ &n '( Januar 1!")* Dolina completed the course* and undertoo+ an e,uipment ,ualification course up to ) &ctober 1!")$ &n ! &ctober 1!")* the -ivil Aeronautics Administration issued him a license as -ommercial Pilot and PAL then e.tended him a temporar appointment for si. (6) months as Limited /irst &fficer 0hen his appointment was due to e.pire on #1 April 1!"(* Dolina had onl logged eight four (2)) hours and fift five ((() minutes fl ing time* short of the minimum (11 fl ing hours re,uired for regulari3ation as /irst &fficer After the third e.tension of his appointment* Dolina completed the (11 fl ing hours re,uirement* and thus on #1 4arch 1!"6 he applied for regulari3ation as /irst &fficer$ &n 1" August 1!"6* Dolina too+ a ps chological e.amination wherein his 5Adaptabilit 6ating5 was found to be 5unacceptable5 o 7e was sub8ected to an e.amination and interview b the Pilot Acceptance 9ualifications :oard as part of the regulari3ation process* which e.amination revealed the following; b$ Armando Dolina After thorough evaluation of the candidate<s past records* his performance and the result of his medical e.amination as submitted b the 4edical Sub= Department* the :oard finds 4r$ A$ Dolina not ,ualified for regular emplo ment in the -ompan $ Dolina was placed under preventive suspension effective 1 &ctober 1!"6$ Dolina countered with a complaint for illegal dismissal Department of Labor 6egional &ffice >o$ ?@ lifted the preventive suspension* %n& or&ere& petitioner to rein t%te Do)in% to his former position with *+)) b%c,-%.e *rom 1 "ctober 19/0 +p to %ct+%) rein t%tement. !1e i +e o* termin%tion %n& &%m%.e -% re*erre& to t1e E2ec+tive L%bor Arbiter *or comp+) or3 %rbitr%tion N"!E( o Petitioner %ppe%)e& t1e or&er )i*tin. Do)in%4 + pen ion to t1e

Secret%r3 o* L%bor. Ho-ever, on 2 $%rc1 19//, pen&in. t1e re o)+tion o* petitioner4 %ppe%), t1e p%rtie i.ne& %n %.reement be*ore t1e 5n&er ecret%r3 o* L%bor, t1e term o* -1ic1 %re % *o))o- ( AGREE$EN! !1e +n&er i.ne& p%rtie 1ereb3 %.ree to t1e *o))o-in.( 61i)e pen&in. *in%) re o)+tion o* t1e comp)%int o* $r. Arm%n&o Do)in% %.%in t t1e P1i)ippine Air)ine , 1e 1%)) be con i&ere& in t1e p%3ro)) e**ective 1 "ctober 19/0. !1e or&er o* Re.ion%) Director 7icente Leo.%r&o *or t1e rein t%tement -it1 b%c,-%.e o* $r. Do)in% i 1ereb3 ren&ere& moot %n& %c%&emic. 8 !1e p%rtie 1%)) con i&er t1i %rr%n.ement pen&in. *in%) re o)+tion o* t1e c% e b3 %rbitr%tion. PAL removed Dolina from its pa roll effective 1 April 1!"! "n 8 'ebr+%r3 1989, p+b)ic re pon&ent NLRC ren&ere& it &eci ion *or Do)in% to be re tore& to t1e p%3ro)) %n& p%i& *or 1i %)%rie *rom 1 Apri) 19/9, t1e &%te 1e -% &roppe& *rom t1e re pon&ent4 p%3ro)).

ISS5E( 6"N t1e NLRC committe& .r%ve %b+ e o* &i cretion in 1o)&in. t1%t priv%te re pon&ent Do)in% -% entit)e& to 1i %)%rie *rom 1 Apri) 19/9 :+nti) t1i c% e i *in%))3 re o)ve&.: ; N" RA!I"( 6espondent contends that* since the Labor Arbiter<s decision in favor of petitioner did not finall resolve the case in view of the timel appeal b private respondent from said decision* the case was not et finall terminated b arbitration and Dolina is entitled to be placed in petitioner<s pa roll until the complaint is finall resolved$ ?n entering into the agreement* the parties could not have intended to include in the clause 5final resolution of the case b arbitration5 the whole ad8udicator process* including appeal$ /or if it were so* even proceedings on certiorari before this -ourt would be embraced b the term 5arbitration5 and private respondent will continue to receive monthl salar without rendering an service to the petitioner regardless of the outcome of the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter* for as long as one of the parties appeal to the >L6- and until the case is finall resolved b this -ourt$ %his is clearl an absurdit which could not have been contemplated b the parties$

Neit1er c%n procee&in. on %ppe%) be*ore t1e NLRC en b%nc be con i&ere& % p%rt o* t1e %rbitr%tion procee&in.. In it bro%& en e, %rbitr%tion i t1e re*erence o* % &i p+te to %n imp%rti%) t1ir& per on, c1o en b3 t1e p%rtie or %ppointe& b3 t%t+tor3 %+t1orit3 to 1e%r %n& &eci&e t1e c% e in controver 3 61en t1e con ent o* one o* t1e p%rtie i en*orce& b3 t%t+tor3 provi ion , t1e procee&in. i re*erre& to % comp+) or3 %rbitr%tion In )%bor c% e , comp+) or3 %rbitr%tion i t1e proce o* ett)ement o* )%bor &i p+te b3 % .overnment %.enc3 -1ic1 1% t1e %+t1orit3 to inve ti.%te %n& to m%,e %n %-%r& -1ic1 i bin&in. on %)) t1e p%rtie 0hen the Labor Arbiter renders his decision* compulsor arbitration is deemed terminated because b then the hearing and determination of the controvers has ended$ An appeal raised b an aggrieved part from the Labor Arbiter<s decision is alread be ond the scope of arbitration since in the appeal stage* the >L6- en banc merel reviews the Labor Arbiter<s decision for errors of fact or law and no longer duplicates the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter$ %hus* the clause 5pending final resolution of the case b arbitration5 should be understood to be limited onl to the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter* such that when the latter rendered his decision* the case was finall resolved b arbitration$ %he >L6- had no authorit to order the continued pa ment of Dolina<s salaries from 1 April 1!"! until the case is finall resolved$ %he >L6-<s order would result in compensating Dolina for services no longer rendered and when he is no longer in PAL<s emplo $ %his is contrar to the ageold rule of 5a fair da <s wage for a fair da <s labor5 which continues to govern the relation between labor and capital and remains a basic factor in determining emplo ees< wages