FASAP asks SC to reinstate 'final' ruling flipped by PAL lawyer's letter

The Flight Attendants Association of the Philippines (FASAP) on Monday asked the Supreme Court to reconsider – the fourth such motion before the tribunal on the same case – its Oct. 4 decision to review its 2009 ruling that declared as illegal the retrenchment of over 1,400 FASAP members in 1998. FASAP also asked the high court to make public the letters written by Philippine Airlines (PAL) lawyer Estelito Mendoza which had convinced the tribunal to recall, on account of a technicality, its Sept. 7 “final" resolution affirming that FASAP did win their 13-year old illegal dismissal case. In its ten-page motion for reconsideration, FASAP asked the SC to set-aside its decision recalling its Sept. 7 resolution of the retrenchment case, based on letters written by Mendoza questioning the referral of the case to a different SC division. The original case was decided in favor of FASAP by the court’s Third Division in 2009. The same division denied PAL first motion for reconsideration. PAL then filed a second motion for reconsideration, but this was again denied, this time by the court’s Second Division last Sept. 7. FASAP spokesman Dennis Ortiz told GMA News TV, “Pine-present po namin ngayon sa SC na sana po ay dinggin ang aming mga hinaing na sana po sila ang nagsasabi na ipa-prioritize raw. Sinasabi nila idadaan sa tamang proseso, malaman natin." PAL is still waiting to consult with Mendoza on the issue, and has declined to comment.
Based on mere letters In its motion, FASAP insisted that the Sept. 7 resolution of the SC’s Second Division was a “valid final and executory judgment, [that] is therefore legally immutable and should not have been recalled." However, this resolution was recalled under the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, allowing for the appropriate transfer of division cases to the court en banc which the tribunal “deems of sufficient importance to merit its attention." In a statement posted on the group’s website, FASAP president Bob Anduiza said that the Supreme Court should not have hastily recalled the Sept.7 resolution based on mere letters from Atty. Mendoza. “Is that proper and legal? Can you just recall a valid order based on letters?" Anduiza asked. He said the Oct. 4 recall violated FASAP’s right to due process, adding that PAL did not even “bother to furnish us with copies of the Mendoza letters." No PAL “pressure," just “misapplication" of rules On the other hand, SC spokeman Court Administrator Midas Marquez said “Alamin nilang mabuti kung ano yung nangyari. Wala pa namang flip-flopping na sinasabi dahil hindi pa binaligtad ‘yung naunang desisyon. Mas mahirap kung pananatilhin nating may mis-application tapos puwede naman nating bawiin at itama." Last week, Marquez defended the high court, saying that the SC was not “pressured" by PAL and had simply decided to recall the Sept. 7 resolution because the "technicalities" pointed out in Mendoza’s letter were "material." "Before you attack the Supreme Court, you should study the case first. Some people say so many things against the Court even if they don't obviously understand the case," Chief Justice Corona said in a speech he delivered at the 37th Philippine Business Conference and Expo. But in its motion filed on Monday, FASAP claimed that the resolution issued by the Supreme Court en banc last Oct. 4 had recalled the Second Division’s ruling “without providing any reason." FASAP underscored that Article VIII, Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution provides that “[n]o decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based." — With a report by Amanda Lago/VS, GMA News