Digest Author: Fredrick Atienza

ALMARIO V PAL

Petitioners: Vicente AlmarioRespondents: PAL

Doctrine: Enrichment of the defendant consists in every patrimonial, physical, or moral advantage, so long as it is appreciable in moneyThe enrichment of the defendant must have a correlative prejudice, disadvantage, or injury to the plaintiffThe 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.

FACTS: 1. Vicente S. Almario (Almario), was hired by respondent, Philippine

Airlines, Inc. (PAL), as a Boeing 747 Systems Engineer.2. Almario, then 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.

3. 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.

4. PAL sent a letter to Almario stating that he would be liable to pay for the expenses incurred by PAL for Almario’s training.

5. Almario still resigned.6. PAL filed a complaint against Almario with the RTC of Makati for

reimbursement of the training expenses. 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.

7. Almario answered that there was no provision in the CBA which contained the 3 year rule.

8. The lower court ruled in favor of Almario. On appeal, CA found Almario liable under the CBA1 and under Article 222 of the Civil Code.

ISSUE:

1 Article XXIII, Section 1 of the 1991-1994 Collective Bargaining Agreement:

1. WoN Almario must reimburse Philippine Airlines for the training expenses.

RULING + RATIO:1. YES. Almario would be unjustly enriched if he does not reimburse

PAL. (MAIN) Article 22 of the CC on unjust enrichment recognizes the

principle that one may not enrich himself at the expense of another.

o 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.

o 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.

Pilots fifty-seven (57) years of age shall be frozen in their position. Pilots who are less than fifty-seven (57) years of age provided they have previously qualified in any company’s turbo-jet aircraft shall be permitted to occupy any position in the company’s turbo-jet fleet.2 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.

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.

2. YES. Based on Section 1 of Art XXIII of the CBA The rationale of the three-year period is the prohibitive training

costs. At an earlier time, when the CBA between PAL and its employees were still negotiated, the Secretary of Labor basically ruled that PAL should be allowed a return on investment for their pilots’ training expenses. Thus, the provisions that pilots 57 years of age shall be frozen and pilots less than 57, provided they have previously qualified in any company’s turbo-jet aircraft, shall be permitted to occupy any position in the company’s turbo-jet fleet, were incorporated in later incarnations of the CBA.

It bears noting that when Almario took the training course, he was about 39 years old, 21 years away from the retirement age of 60. Hence, with the maturity, expertise, and experience he gained from the training course, he was expected to serve PAL for at least three years to offset the prohibitive costs thereof.

DISPOSITIONAlmario must pay PAL the sum of P559,739.90, to bear the legal interest rate of 6% per annum from the filing of PALs complaint on February 11, 1997 until the finality of this decision. In light of the foregoing discussions on the main issue, the Court finds it unnecessary to dwell on the other issues raised by Almario. Suffice it to state that the appellate courts disposition thereof is, as its decision reflects, well-taken. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.