PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. AND CAPT. JAIME H. MANZANO, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND SALVADOR GEMPIS, RESPONDENTS.

Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) and Captain Jaime H. Manzano seek
to annul the decision promulgated by respondent National Labor Relations
Commission, dated November 29, 1982, affirming the decision of the Labor
Arbiter Teodorico Dogelio in Case No. AB-11-9118-80 (NCR-STF-11-6503-80)
entitled “Salvador Gempis vs. Philippine Airlines, et al.,” as
follows:

“WHEREFORE, responsive to the foregoing consideration,
judgment is hereby rendered:

a)     
Denying respondent’s application for clearance to terminate
complainant’s services; the penalty of six (6) months demotion being enough to
appear in complainant’s employment file; and

b)     
Ordering respondent to effect immediate reinstatement of
complainant to his position as
YS-11 Captain, with back wages for a period of six (6) months corresponding to said position.”

Records show that on November 3, 1980, private respondent,
Salvador Gempis, a YS-11 pilot of PAL with the rank of captain, filed with the
Ministry of Labor, National Capital Region, a complaint against PAL for illegal
suspension and dismissal. The next day,
November 4, 1980, PAL filed with the
same office an application for clearance to terminate the employment of
Gempis on the grounds of (1) serious misconduct and (2) violation of the liquor
ban and company policies.

The charge of petitioners against Gempis was “serious
misconduct (abuse of authority)” for forcing First Officers A. Barcebal
and J. Ranches to drink on February 27, 1980, at 10:30 in the evening at the
coffee shop of the Triton Hotel at Cebu, six (6) bottles of beer each, within thirty minutes. Unable to consume the bottles of beer within
the time limit set by private respondent Salvador Gempis, the two pilots were
ordered to stand erect and were hit on the stomach by private respondent. The petition alleged that “the incident
occurred with the full knowledge of private respondent that the two (2)
affected co-pilots have flight duties the next day with initial assignments as
early as 0710 H (7:10 a.m.) and as late as 1200H (12:00 p.m.).” (pp. 4-5,
Rollo)

We quote the decision of respondent National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) which based its finding on the decision of the labor arbiter
as follows:

“Under the foregoing circumstances, the specific issue for
resolution is whether or not the complainant Salvador Gempis is being dismissed
for a just and valid cause.

“We find the decision of the Committee on appeal which
recommended the termination which is an increase in the original penalty of
demotion in rank and pay of
complainant, unjustified and oppressive if not void, for being violative of Sec. XIII Part B 2 (b) requiring a unanimous vote of all
three (3) members thereof. To impose the penalty of dismissal for
violation of the liquor ban which is applicable to all pilots of Company, the
Committee should have likewise recommended the investigation of all personnel involved
in the drinking session on 27 February
1980. While this alleged offense forms
part or is related to the original one (abuse of authority), the committee, in
justice to the complainant should have remanded the case to the investigating
Committee so as to include the more serious offense considering that the earlier
investigation dealt mainly on complainant’s alleged gross misconduct committed
against his subordinates.

“Moreover, we do not clearly see that the presence of a complainant posed a serious and
imminent threat to the property of respondent firm in order to justify the
preventive suspension imposed upon the former effective November 1, 1980 when
it applied for clearance to terminate the petitioner’s services.

“Nevertheless, we find every piece of evidence on record to be
more in support that complainant did commit abuse of authority amounting to
gross misconduct when he forced F/O’s A. Barcebal and J. Ranches to each
consume three (3) bottles of beer within thirty (30) minutes and when they
failed, they were ordered to stand erect and boxed on their stomachs, at about
8:30 P.M. on 27, February 1980.

“It is highly improbable that with such a report containing a
charge of a more or less serious incident, would be reaching management, though
belatedly, if the same did not
occur. We see no reason for
management, much less its officers, to
concoct such an incident if only
to harass complainant when no reasonable basis therefor existed. The records do not show the complainant is
involved in any previous incident incurring management’s ire or disfavor or of having participated in any labor dispute or activities as a member (sic) of the ALPAP, as a basis for
such harassment.

“Finally, there was the in­vestigation conducted by the inves­tigating
Committee, the constitution of and procedure in which was never questioned
before hand. As it appears, the
investigation was conducted in a most impartial and regular manner wherein
complainant was given the opportunity to explain his side, examine reports and confront witnesses. We see no impartiality in the conduct of hearing x x x.

“While we agree with the finding of the Labor Arbiter that the
complainant did commit abuse of authority amounting to gross misconduct when he
forced F/O’s A. Barcebal and J. Ranches to each consume three (3) bottles of
beer within thirty (30) minutes and when they failed, they were ordered to
stand erect and boxed on their stomachs, we find that the penalty of demotion
for a period of six (6) months at the most which the Labor Arbiter imposed is
the commensurate and equitable penalty.” (pp. 23-25, Rollo)

On the basis of the above findings of facts by respondent NLRC,
We fully agree with the position of herein petitioner that –

“[l]t would be grossly unfair to order petitioners to
reinstate him back to his work as pilot. The nature of employment of herein private respondent necessitates that he should not violate the liquor ban as
provided for in the Basic Operations Manual in order to protect not only the
interest of the company but the public as well. Private respondent is a risk and liability rather than an asset
to petitioner PAL.

“x x x The
private respondent and those persons he abused (F/Os A. Barcebal and J.
Ranches) are pilots. The foremost
consideration called for by their position as pilots is the safety of the passengers. This is so because the duties of a pilot consist of handling controls of
the aircraft and to ensure that the flight is conducted safely and
economically. x x x

x x x                                                  x
x x                                         x
x x

“x x x The
respondent Commission committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
of jurisdiction in not imposing the appropriate penalty of dismissal as called
for not only by company regulations
(BOM) but also by the CAA, when as borne by its own (NLRC) findings, private
respondent did commit the offense complained of. Under these facts, clearance to terminate should have been given
for the dismissal of private respondent.” (pp. 15-19, Rollo)

The business of petitioner Philippine Airlines is such that
whenever a passenger dies or is injured the presumption is, it is at fault
notwithstanding the fact that it has exercised due diligence of a good father
of a family in the selection and supervision of its employees. Thus, extraordinary measures and diligence
should be exercised by it for the safety of its passengers and their
belongings. Needless to state, a pilot
must be sober all the time for he may be called upon to fly a plane even before
his regular scheduled hours, otherwise so many lives will be in danger if he is
drunk. It would be unjust for an
employer like herein petitioner PAL to be compelled to continue with the
employment of a person whose continuance in the service is obviously inimical
to its interests.

ACCORDINGLY, the decision of respondent National
Labor Relations Commission dated November
29, 1982 is SET ASIDE and petitioners’ application for clearance to
terminate private respondent Salvador Gempis from employment is hereby APPROVED.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Vasquez, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.