Palace: Up to SC to explain ruling recall

MANILA, Philippines - It’s up to the Supreme Court to explain its recall of a decision declaring as illegal Philippine Airlines’ dismissal of 1,400 flight attendants 13 years ago, Malacañang said yesterday.

Presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda also said in a press briefing yesterday that there were no discussions yet on possible government intervention in the case.

“I don’t remember we had a position there. In fact, DOLE (Department of Labor and Employment) upheld the position of FASAP (Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines). But with this new turnaround, we do not wish to comment on the latest decision by the Supreme Court (SC) because it’s something that they should explain themselves,” Lacierda said.

“I myself wondered how such a technicality was overlooked by the Supreme Court but that’s as far as we can comment on it. But the original decision with FASAP, I think DOLE Secretary (Rosalinda) Baldoz upheld the position of the flight attendants,” he said.

Lacierda said all questions concerning technicalities and legal procedures would have to be brought up to the SC.

“I don’t know the rules there. I leave that to (SC spokesman) Midas Marquez to explain what happened in their decision,” Lacierda said.

“Right now, it’s still under a motion for reconsideration. I’m not sure if the Solicitor General was even involved in that particular case because it’s a case between two parties – the FASAP and Philippine Airlines,” he said.

But Lacierda, who is a lawyer, said they would take a closer look at the decision because “it is something out of the ordinary.”

“That’s the first time I heard of a reason for holding back a decision but it’s interesting for us to know the reasons and we will leave it to the Supreme Court, to Attorney Midas Marquez, to explain,” Lacierda said. He expressed hope such procedural lapse would never happen again.

“I think once burned, twice shy. The Supreme Court must be sure not to make the same mistake again if ever this time the technicality was overlooked,” Lacierda said.

Marquez said the SC had to issue a resolution withdrawing the Sept. 7 decision of its Second Division, citing “misapplication of rules.”

Marquez said on Tuesday that based on the rules of court, a case goes to a special division if the justice originally handling it in a regular division retires. Marquez revealed that the case was first assigned to the Third Division of the high tribunal with now retired Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago as member-in-charge. When the former magistrate retired in 2009, the case was transferred to a special division composed of her replacement and the original members. Membership in SC divisions has since changed due to retirement of justices.

SC firm

The SC, for its part, defended its recall of the ruling and rebuffed insinuations it was favoring PAL chairman Lucio Tan.

“There should be more deliberate study on what happened. So let’s just see what the next action of the court will be,” Marquez told a press briefing.

He added that the magistrates could have easily ruled in Tan’s favor right from the very start had they been biased for the business tycoon.

“If such allegation were true, then the case should have already been decided earlier in his favor when the court ruled on it in 2008 and 2009. But the court has been very consistent in dismissing his appeal and favoring FASAP,” he explained.

He added there was nothing irregular about the SC withdrawing its decision based on a letter from PAL lawyer Estelito Mendoza.

Marquez said the high court on several instances had acted on cases based on letters from parties.

“Many of the letters received by the high court about pending cases are actually included in the agenda during their session. In this case, the court has actually received letters also from FASAP members seeking early resolution of the case and the court acted on those letters by taking note of them,” he pointed out. “It’s not unusual (for the court to act on letters).”

He said Mendoza’s letter, coursed through the office of the clerk of court, had never in any way put undue pressure on the justices.

The high court revived the Hacienda Luisita case last year also based on a letter from farmers seeking the recall of the 2006 temporary restraining order on the distribution of the plantation to farmers under the government’s Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.

Marquez said that in the PAL case, the SC only rectified an error in procedures. “The court just acted swiftly and rectified whatever misapplication of rule at the earliest possible time,” Marquez said.

Associate Justices Arturo Brion and Jose Perez, both regular members of the SC’s Second Division, signed the recall order.

Division chairman Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio inhibited during the voting but later on approved the release of the resolution.

Marquez said the case was transferred to the full court and assigned to a new member-in-charge last Monday. It was not, however, taken up during full court session yesterday since the assigned justice was not ready with a draft ruling.

He revealed that four magistrates – Carpio and Justices Presbitero Velasco Jr., Teresita Leonardo-De Castro and Mariano del Castillo – had already inhibited from the case, so only the 11 left would vote on PAL’s second motion for reconsideration.

“But this case is going to be prioritized. Either party can also file motion for early resolution,” he said.

Marquez said the court understands the frustration of the dismissed flight attendants.

FASAP members Albert Visitacion and Annie Mateo voiced their indignation at the SC’s recalling an order based on Mendoza’s “magic letter.”

“Why did they raise the issue just now after the SC second division issued a ruling not favorable to PAL?” Visitacion asked. FASAP said the development was the “height of judicial insensitivity and arrogance.”

The SC declared as illegal on July 22, 2008 the dismissal of 1,400 flight attendants.

On Oct. 2, 2009, the SC junked PAL’s appeal and declared the ruling favoring the flight attendants final and that no other pleadings would be entertained.

However, on Jan. 2, 2011, PAL filed a second motion for reconsideration.

Last Sept. 7, the court again denied PAL’s motion and ruled with finality in favor of FASAP. The flight attendants said the SC appeared to be setting the stage for a decision favorable to PAL management.

“As if by a mere stroke of a magic wand, the case, which had already been decided three times by the Supreme Court, has now been reopened. This paves the way to a possible reversal of the case,” FASAP said in a statement.   

“This is unprecedented and highly anomalous, the ‘Honorable’ justices of the Supreme Court should be held accountable for this naked power play,” FASAP pointed out. – With Edu Punay, Mayen Jaymalin