The Philippine Online Chronicles

The Flight Attendants and Stewards Associations of the Philippines (FASAP) asked the highest court of the land on Monday to reinstate their September 7 decision in favor of 1,400 Philippine Airlines (PAL) cabin crew members that went on strike in 1998.

FASAP files MR

FASAP maintains in a 10-page motion for reconsideration that the September 7 decision reinstating the PAL employees was final and immutable and should not have been recalled.

According to FASAP, the October 14 decision had no constitutional basis and was brought about by prodding from PAL legal counsel and former solicitor general Estilito Mendoza.

The group said that the high court’s reconsideration based on Mendoza’s letters violatived due process and was similar to allowing PAL to file a motion for reconsideration.

“We were not even furnished copies of the supposed ‘letters.’ Is that proper and legal? Can you just recall a valid order based on letters?” said FASAP president Bob Anduiza.

“The Supreme Court’s credibility is at stake here. Sadly, because of their questionable recall, 1,400 lives are affected. We can never fathom the suffering and profound pain of the illegally retrenched PAL flight attendants,” Anduiza said in a statement.

The Supreme Court reversed the ruling on October 4, stating there had been a mix-up in assigning the case. The Special Third Division, instead of the Second Division, was supposed to handle the case according to SC spokesperson Midas Marquez. The Third Division had jurisdiction but a series of retirements and reshuffling of division led to the case being assigned to the Second Division.

“A decision by any of the Supreme Court’s three divisions is legally the decision of the Supreme Court itself,” FASAP said.

FASAP said the decision remains valid since the mix-up was a “harmless technicality.”

“[A]ny alleged technical lapse, not being grounded on lack of jurisdiction, violation of due process or existence of fraud or collusion, cannot render the 07 September 2011 Resolution void so as to constitute an exception to the rule on immutability,” stated FASAP in the motion.

PAL lawyer denies asking for SC reversal

PAL legal counsel Mendoza clarified in a statement that he had not asked the high court to reconsider the September 7 decision and the reversal was “a pleasant surprise.”

Mendoza said he wrote a total of four letters to the high court but insisted that what he did was not illegal and he only wrote “valid inquiries.”

After the September 7 decision which prohibited the parties from submitting further pleadings, Mendoza wrote his third letter to the court. He pointed out that the ruling had been issued by the Second Division while all previous decisions were issued by the Court’s Third Division. In his fourth letter Mendoza requested the clerk of court to forward copies of his letters to the justices of the Second Division.

FASAP has asked that the letter be made public to lay to rest suspicions that Mendoza used undue influence on the high court to secure the reconsideration. FASAP has also criticized the decision, stating the court acts only on motions and not letters.

SC spokesperson Midas Marquez last September 12 stressed that the no there were no influences over the resolution and the decision was based on the “misapplication” of the SC internal rules. He added this was not the first time the high court has acted on letters, including those sent by FASAP.

"Normally, the court acts on motions, but [there had been] several instances that the court has acted on letters from litigants, lawyers... asking for the resolution of their cases. In fact, the court has received a number of letters from FASAP members and these letters were acted upon by the court," Marquez said.

Marquez added that it was more dangerous to leave the procedural error unchecked and to allow doubt to be cast on why the Second Division decided the case.

"We cannot blame the members of FASAP for feeling that way... But [an] issue was pointed out to the court and the court knows the issues involved in this case, the repercussions, and it thought that it would be best to take this course of action," he said.

Case raffled for resolution

The Supreme Court has been criticized for flip-flopping on the decision and has given the review of the case priority.

According to an ABS-CBNnews report, Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno is set to pen the decision of the court on PAL’s motion for reconsideration, which will be submitted for deliberation by the full court in session. Her decision, if approved, will replace the September 7 decision and resolve the questioned recall order.