THE Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday insisted on the propriety of its decision to recall its final decision declaring as illegal the dismissal by the country’s flag carrier, the Philippine Airlines (PAL), of some 1,400 cabin-crew personnel belonging to the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association (Fasap).
SC Spokesman Jose Midas Marquez denied that the Court was influenced by business tycoon Lucio Tan into recalling its September 7, 2011 resolution, which denied PAL’s second motion for reconsideration of its final ruling on the case.
“If indeed those allegations are true, this case should not have been decided against his favor in 2008, and in 2009 and then again now in 2011,” Marquez said.
In its July 22, 2008 decision, the Court granted Fasap’s petition seeking to declare the dismissal of its 1,400 members illegal. The Court denied PAL’s first motion for reconsideration on October 2, 2009.
However, the Court modified part of the ruling that instead of ordering PAL to immediately reinstate the cabin crew or pay backwages and separation pay of those reinstatement no longer feasible, it remanded the case to the labor arbiter “solely for the purpose of computing the exact amount of the award” to be given to the dismissed employees.
On October 4 the Court en banc issued a resolution taking cognizance of the letters and motion filed by PAL’s counsel Estelito Mendoza asking the SC to vacate its September 7 resolution.
The SC also decided to elevate the case before the Court en banc for action to avoid further confusion.
Marquez noted that the Court’s Internal Rules on who resolve motions for reconsideration of decisions or signed resolutions in cases assigned to the divisions of the Court was not followed in the Fasap-PAL case.
On Tuesday members of the Fasap Attendants’ and Stewards Association picketed the SC building in Manila to protest the recall of its September 7 resolution, which should have put finality on the issue.
The picket was held while the Court was holding its regular en banc session where various petitions were deliberated by the magistrates.
The group questioned the Court’s recall of its September 7 resolution considering that it was made based only on a letter sent by Mendoza.
“Why is there a need for the Court to act merely based on a single letter [of Mendoza]? It’s like a magic letter. There is no motion, just a letter,” Fasap member Albert Visitacion told reporters.
Visitacion added that the group is also bothered by the fact that Mendoza’s letter was kept secret from them until the time the Court recalled its September 7 resolution.
“How can a mere letter from Mendoza cause a recall of such a monumental Supreme Court decision involving the lives of 1,400 people? What compelling reason justified the Supreme Court recall?” Fasap President Bob Anduiza asked.
“It is the height of judicial insensitivity and arrogance,” Anduiza claimed.
But, Marquez noted that there are several instances that the Court acted or took cognizance of a letter coming from the parties or litigants.
“In fact, the Court received a number of letters from Fasap members seeking early resolution of the case and these letters were acted upon by the Court,” Marquez said.
“What is clear to me is there are no influences that prevail in the Court’s action to take cognizance of this particular case,” he added.
In its motion to vacate the September 7 resolution, Mendoza argued that the issuance of the September 9 resolution by the Second Division is in violation of the SC Internal Rules.
He added that it also violates the Constitution’s Section 4 (3) Article VIII (Judiciary), which states that “cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon, and in no case without the concurrence of at least three of such members.”
“In view of the foregoing, PAL submits that the Resolution of September 7, 2011 was improperly issued by the wrong division, a wrong composition of the division, and its conclusions could not have been reached with the required deliberation and consultation, in violation of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, and more importantly, the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. The Resolution of September 7, 2011 should be vacated,” Mendoza said.
