SC flips its ‘final’ flight attendants ruling

(UPDATED 11:29 p.m.) Barely a month after the Supreme Court refused with “finality" to reconsider its decision three years ago to order Philippine Airlines (PAL) to reinstate 1,400 “illegally" retrenched flight attendants, the high tribunal has now allowed the re-opening of the case by re-raffling it off to a “new Member-In-Charge." In a two-page resolution issued on Oct. 4, the court en banc took back the “final entry of judgment" while earlier declared as illegal PAL’s retrenchment of 1,400 flight attendants after they went on strike back in 1998. The latest high court resolution – the fourth ruling it has made so far – also took back its order to PAL’s owner, businessman Lucio Tan, to pay P3 billion in favor of the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association (FASAP). “There appears to be a misapplication of the rules," said SC spokesman Court Administrator Midas Marquez on Monday. “The court en banc decided to recall the resolution of the Second Division." Marquez explained that instead of a Special Division taking up the case – as required by Section 7, Rule 2 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court – the court’s Second Division promulgated on Sept.7 a resolution, dismissing PAL’s second motion for reconsideration and affirming the Third Division’s 2008 decision in favor of FASAP. Marquez cited the re-shuffling of the composition of the court divisions following a series of retirement of SC associate justices from the high bench. “This is a very important case and we want to remove all doubts. That does not mean that the decision of the Second Division is wrong. It only means that it should be decided by the appropriate Special Division," he clarified. ‘Finality’ of 2008 decision On July 22, 2008, the Supreme Court’s Third Division – headed then by SC Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago – ordered the reinstatement with full back wages of the cabin crew members illegally retrenched by PAL. The airline then filed two motions for reconsideration. The first was denied on Oct. 2, 2009 by a Special Third Division – again headed by Ynares-Santiago, who retired two days after. Just this year, the court’s Second Division, under SC Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, dismissed with “finality" PAL’s second Motion for Reconsideration, adding that “no further pleadings shall be entertained." However, the latest SC ruling states that “[t]he Court en banc further resolves to recall the resolution dated September 7, 2011 issued by the Second Division in this case." “What could have happened was that a regular member of the Second Division, who was designated to sit as a member of the Special Third Division, decided it and thought he or she was deciding that as a member of the Second Division," surmised Marquez.
Lawyer’s letter cites procedural mistake The en banc resolution cited Rule 2, Section 3, subparagraphs (m) and (n), of the Internal Rules. This allows for the appropriate transfer of division cases to the court en banc which it “deems of sufficient importance to merit its attention." PAL’s legal counsel and Tan’s lawyer, Estelito Mendoza, had written a letter to the court questioning the referral of the case to the SC Second Division instead of the SC Third Division. The high tribunal deliberates and decides on cases either as a full 15-man court en banc, or else in five-man divisions. However, by the time the ruling on the second motion for reconsideration was promulgated, all of the associate justices who composed the SC Third Division that originally handled the case had already retired. — KBK/VS, GMA News