NORTHWEST AIRLINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND LOUISE MATEU, PETITIONERS, VS. NORTHWEST AIRLINES INC., AND COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, RESPONDENTS.

Petition for certiorari to review the resolution en
banc of the Court of Industrial Relations dated July 21, 1964 in its
Case No. 3260-ULP.

Petitioner Louise Mateu was employed as
a flight stewardess of the respondent company since 1947 until Sept­ember 23,
1960, when she was dismissed from the service. 
Together with the Northwest Airlines Employees Association, of which she
was a member, she charged the respondent company with unfair labor practice,
alleging that her dis­missal was due to her union activities.

On June 28, 1962, during the pendency
of the case,
the petitioner applied to and was reemployed by respondent company, this time as passenger sales agent.  On
October 29, 1962 the company wrote her a latter inquiring if she would be
willing to accept the position on a permanent basis, stating at the came time
that the suit she had filed appeared to be a “lack of desire on (her) part
to be a regular passenger-sales agent.” 
On November 15, 1962 she save a rather equivocal reply, saying that her
acceptance of the offer should tot be construed as a waiver of her claim in the
case pending before the Court of Industrial Relations.

On September 30,1963 the
said Court, through Judge Jose S. Bautista, decided the case, finding the
respondent company guilty of unfair labor practice and ordering it to reinstate
the petitioner to her job as flight stewardess “with full back wages and
without loss to her seniority and other acquired rights therein.”

The company moved to reconsider, and on July 21, 1964, the Court en
banc, with three Judges concurring in full, resolved the motion as
follows:

“Justice and fair play demands that she is only entitled to
receive what she missed to receive during the period of her wrongful dismissal,
or from September 24, 1960 to June, 1962. 
The excess over P445.07 that she received from the company under the now
designation should also be deducted, unless she could claim that she would have
been entitled to same increase had she not been dismissed.”

One Judge wrote a separate concurring and dissenting opinion to
the effect that there should be no deduction from her back pay corresponding to
the period of her dismissal, that is, from September 23, 1960 to June 28, 1962,
and that upon her reinstatement as flight stewardess she should be entitled to
a salary no lower than what she was than receiving as passenger sales agent.

When petitioner Louise Mateu dismissed
as flight stewardess her salary was P445.07 a month.  She was reemployed as passenger sales agent
on June 28, 1962 at the same monthly rate. 
Since then, however, she received a number of salary increase.  On August 9, 1965 after the instant petition
was filed and pursuant to a motion for execution pending appeal, she was
reinstated to her former position of flight stewardess and was paid her back
salaries for the period of her lay-off (from September 23, 1960 to June 27,
1962) at the rate of P445.07 a month, minus all that she had received in excess
of that rate during the period of her employment as passenger sales agent, that
is, from, June 28, 1962 to August 8,1965. 
The amount actually deducted was P2,480.95.

The first issue raised in this petition is the validity of such
deduction as ordered in the respondent Court’s resolution of July 21,
1964.  To justify the said order the
respondent company cites several decisions of this Court,^[1]
wherein it was held that whatever the dismissed laborers had actually earned
during the period of their illegal dismissal should be deducted, on the prin­ciple
that no one should be allowed to enrich himself at the expense of another.

Several reasons militate against the application of those
decisions in the case now before us. 
First, whatever Louise Mateu earned during the
time she was work­ing as passenger sales agent was for services rendered to the
respondent company; she did not unduly enrich herself at its expense in being
paid for them; on the contrary, it is the company that
would be unduly enriched if, after having received the benefit of such
services, it should be allowed to pay less than what they were worth.  Secondly, since the parties are agreed that
the period of the petitioner’s dismissal was only from September 23, 1960 to
June 28, 1962, and since she was adjudged entitled to back salaries only during
such period, there is neither logic nor equity in taking into account, for
purposes of deduction, the income she received thereafter.  In those cases where deductions have been
authorized and/or upheld by this Court, only earnings during the period of
suspension or dismissal have been considered. 
Finally, the deduction authorized by the resolution appealed from is
contrary to the provision of Article III, paragraph 5, of the bargaining
agreement be­tween the Northwest Airlines Employees Association, of which
Louise Mateu is a Member, and the respondent company,
as follows:

“5.  An employee hereunder who is assigned
temporarily by the company to perform duties and accept the responsibility of a
higher classification of work shall be paid the rate of the higher
classification so worked. . .”

The next issue raised by the petitioners is whether or not the
respondent company was justified in reinstating petitioner Louise Mateu to her former position as flight stewardess at the
old salary rate of P447.07, considering that when she was reinstated she was already
receiving P570.00 a month as passenger sales agent. 
Article III, paragraph 7, of the collective bargaining contract is
cited, to wit:

“7.  An employee who is permanently assigned to a
lower classi­fication shall receive the maximum rate of that classification but
not more than the rate he received in the higher classification.”

The reliance on the foregoing stipulation is mis­placed.  It obviously refers to a situation where an
employee is permanently employed in a certain position and then permanently
assigned to another with a lower classification.  In the present case, however, Louise Mateu’s reemployment as passenger sales agent was temporary
in nature, as it was without prejudice to her claim to the position of flight
stewardess.  Indeed, she impliedly ad­mits
this by citing Article III, paragraph 5, of the bargaining agreement in
challenging the deductions made from her back salaries, which provision
precisely refers to an employee “Who is assigned temporarily… to
perform duties and accept the responsibility of a higher classification of
work,” and who is entitled to be “paid the rate of the classification
so-worked.”

Be that as it may, the decision of the respondent Court of
September 30, 1963 specifically orders the reins­tatement of “complainant
Louise Mateu to her job as flight stewardess, with
full back wages and without loss to her seniority and other acquired rights
therein.” This order was not modified by the resolution of the Court en
banc dated July 21, 1964, nor has it been appealed from, and is therefore
final.  However, since there are
questions of fact involved and raised by the parties concerning this particular
aspect of the judgment, its implementation should be left to the lower court,
where the matter may be heard and evidence, if necessary, may be received.

Wherefore, the resolution appealed from is reversed and
set aside and the respondent company is ordered to restore to the petitioner
Louise Mateu the amount deducted from her salaries
corresponding to her as flight stewardess from September 23, 1960 to June 27,
1962, without prejudice to whatever other rights she may have under the judgment as indicated in the preceding
paragraph.  Costs
against the respondent company.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, Dizon, Zaldivar, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, and Villamor, JJ., concur.

Castro, J., on leave.

^[1]
Philippine Airlines vs. PALEA, G.R. No. L-15544, July 26, 1960, 60 0.G. 8269;
McLeod & Co., vs. Progressive Federation of Labor, G.R. No. L-7881, May 31, 1955; Western Mindanao Federation
of Labor, G.R. No. L-10170, April 25, 1957.