Vicente Almario Vs
3
Vicente Almario vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc. G.R. No. 170928, September 11, 2007 Carpio- Morales, J. Facts: In 1988, Almario was hired by PAL as Boeing 747 Systems Engineer. In 1996, Almario, who was about 39 years of age and a Boeing 737 (B-737) First Officer at PAL, successfully bid for the higher position of Airbus 300 (A-300) First Officer. Since said higher position required additional training , he underwent, at PALs expense , more than five months of training consisting of ground schooling in Manila and flight simulation in Melbourne, Australia . After completing the training course, Almario served as A-300 First Officer of PAL, but after eight months of service as such or on September 16, 1996, he tendered his resignation , for personal reasons, effective October 15, 1996. PAL’s Vice President for Flight Operations sent Almario a letter stating that he should continue to work for the company for 3 years otherwise he would be asked to reimburse the amount the company spent for his training. Despite receipt of the letter, Almario pushed through with his resignation. Almario insists that he did not sign any document that would bind him to render service to PAL in exchange for the training that the company provided to him. PAL filed a Complaint against Almario before the Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC), for reimbursement of P 851,107 worth of training costs, attorneys fees equivalent to 20% of the said amount, and costs of litigation. PAL invoked the existence of an innominate contract of do ut facias (I give that you may do) with Almario in that by spending for his training, he would render service to it until the costs of training were recovered in at least three (3) years. PAL used as basis Article 23 of the 1991-1994 Collective Bargaining Agreement between PAL and ALPAP for its argument that Almario must render 3 years of service to the company in exchange for the training provided to him. The reason why pilots who are 57 years of age are no longer qualified to bid for a higher position is because they have only three (3) years left before the mandatory retirement age [of 60] and to send them to training at that age, PAL would no longer be able to recover whatever training expenses it will have to incur . TC: No provision in the CBA between PAL and ALPAP stipulating that a pilot who underwent a training course for the position of A-300 First
description
law
Transcript of Vicente Almario Vs
Vicente Almario vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc. G.R. No. 170928, September 11, 2007Carpio- Morales, J.
Facts: In 1988, Almario was hired by PAL as Boeing 747 Systems Engineer. In 1996, Almario, who was about 39 years of age and a Boeing 737 (B-737) First Officer at PAL, successfully bid for the higher position of Airbus 300 (A-300) First Officer. Since said higher position required additional training, he underwent, at PALs expense, more than five months of training consisting of ground schooling in Manila and flight simulation in Melbourne, Australia.
After completing the training course, Almario served as A-300 First Officer of PAL, but after eight months of service as such or on September 16, 1996, he tendered his resignation, for personal reasons, effective October 15, 1996. PAL’s Vice President for Flight Operations sent Almario a letter stating that he should continue to work for the company for 3 years otherwise he would be asked to reimburse the amount the company spent for his training. Despite receipt of the letter, Almario pushed through with his resignation.
Almario insists that he did not sign any document that would bind him to render service to PAL in exchange for the training that the company provided to him.
PAL filed a Complaint against Almario before the Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC), for reimbursement of P 851,107 worth of training costs, attorneys fees equivalent to 20% of the said amount, and costs of litigation. PAL invoked the existence of an innominate contract of do ut facias (I give that you may do) with Almario in that by spending for his training, he would render service to it until the costs of training were recovered in at least three (3) years.
PAL used as basis Article 23 of the 1991-1994 Collective Bargaining Agreement between PAL and ALPAP for its argument that Almario must render 3 years of service to the company in exchange for the training provided to him.
The reason why pilots who are 57 years of age are no longer qualified to bid for a higher position is because they have only three (3) years left before the mandatory retirement age [of 60] and to send them to training at that age, PAL would no longer be able to recover whatever training expenses it will have to incur.
TC: No provision in the CBA between PAL and ALPAP stipulating that a pilot who underwent a training course for the position of A-300 First Officer must serve PAL for at least three years failing which he should reimburse the training expenses.
CA: Almario is liable to pay PAL (basis: CBA)
Issue: Whether Almario must be made to pay PAL the amount it spent for the training of Almario.
Held: Yes. The pertinent provision of the CBA and its rationale aside, contrary to Almarios claim, Article 22 of the Civil Code which reads: Art. 22. Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him, applies.
Enrichment of the defendant consists in every patrimonial, physical, or moral advantage, so long as it is appreciable in money. It may consist of some positive pecuniary value incorporated into the patrimony of the defendant, such as: (1) the enjoyment of a thing belonging to the plaintiff; (2) the benefits from service rendered by the plaintiff to the defendant; (3) the acquisition of a right, whether real or personal; (4) the increase of value of property of the defendant; (5) the
improvement of a right of the defendant, such as the acquisition of a right of preference; (6) the recognition of the existence of a right in the defendant; and (7) the improvement of the conditions of life of the defendant. The enrichment of the defendant must have a correlative prejudice, disadvantage, or injury to the plaintiff. This prejudice may consist, not only of the loss of property or the deprivation of its enjoyment, but also of non-payment of compensation for a prestation or service rendered to the defendant without intent to donate on the part of the plaintiff, or the failure to acquire something which the latter would have obtained. The injury to the plaintiff, however, need not be the cause of the enrichment of the defendant. It is enough that there be some relation between them, that the enrichment of the defendant would not have been produced had it not been for the fact from which the injury to the plaintiff is derived.
Admittedly, PAL invested for the training of Almario to enable him to acquire a higher level of skill, proficiency, or technical competence so that he could efficiently discharge the position of A-300 First Officer. Given that, PAL expected to recover the training costs by availing of Almarios services for at least three years. The expectation of PAL was not fully realized, however, due to Almarios resignation after only eight months of service following the completion of his training course. He cannot, therefore, refuse to reimburse the costs of training without violating the principle of unjust enrichment.
