Court of Appeals upholds AirAsia pilots’ union registration

The Court of Appeals (CA) has dismissed Philippines AirAsia Inc.’s petition seeking to cancel the registration of the AirAsia Philippines Pilot Association (APPA), ruling that the pilots do not hold managerial positions and finding no sufficient evidence of fraud or misrepresentation in the union’s formation.

In a resolution dated 23 October 2026, the CA Third Division upheld the Bureau of Labor Relations’ (BLR) dismissal of AirAsia’s appeal to disallow the union. The appellate court said labor authorities must exercise caution in acting on petitions to cancel union registrations to avoid being accused of interfering with union activities.

The CA also stressed the need to uphold workers’ constitutional rights to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Ramon Cruz, the court stated: “Thus, the cancellation of a certificate of registration is the equivalent of snuffing out the life of a labor organization. For without such registration, it loses – as a rule – its rights under the Labor Code.”

AirAsia, in contesting APPA’s registration, argued that the BLR committed grave abuse of discretion by misapprehending the facts.

The airline claimed that APPA did not hold an organizational meeting and had illicitly circulated a blank piece of paper to obtain pilots’ signatures. It also argued that the union’s members were managerial employees who are barred from joining, forming or assisting labor unions.

The CA, however, found no merit in AirAsia’s arguments.

The court said the pilots do not formulate company policies and are therefore not managerial employees, contrary to the airline’s claim.

A thorough examination of the pilot-members’ job descriptions showed that they were not managerial employees because they did not lay down company policies, the CA said.

It also found that the pilots’ functions cited by AirAsia fell under “Commercial Awareness” and were “ambiguous and misleading,” noting that any authority exercised by the pilots was not supreme.

“Nothing therein specifically outlines their actions as final in terms of laying down and implementing managerial policies,” the court said.

The CA added that the jurisprudence cited by AirAsia in support of its petition did not involve circumstances similar to those in the present case.

It also ruled that affidavits submitted by AirAsia’s witnesses were insufficient to establish fraud or misrepresentation in APPA’s adoption of its constitution and by-laws.

Although two witnesses claimed that the union held no organizational meeting and conducted only a “referendum,” the CA said this was not sufficient ground to cancel APPA’s registration.