Corona defends recall on PAL case

MANILA, Philippines - Chief Justice Renato Corona yesterday challenged critics to make a comprehensive study of the case involving the retrenchment of thousands of employees of Philippine Airlines (PAL) before making any judgment.

“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,” Corona told reporters at the sidelines of the 37th Philippine Business Conference and Expo at the Manila Hotel yesterday.

Corona defended the high court in its move to recall the 1998 ruling that declared the retrenchment of over 1,400 flight attendants by PAL as illegal.

Corona revealed the petition of the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) was first assigned to him in 2008 but he inhibited from the case.

The chief magistrate refused to further discuss the recall order, saying it was already sufficiently explained and justified by SC spokesman Midas Marquez.

“Midas (Marquez) already explained it well,” he added.

Corona made the statement after President Aquino said in a forum that Malacañang could only appeal for the high court to hasten its process on the FASAP case following the recall order.

“We were not apprised that there would be a recall of the decision with regards to the FASAP union of PAL and we will, hopefully, not encounter more disruptions because of that. We will appeal to the Supreme Court perhaps to hasten the processes,” Aquino said.

He said the SC move to recall its decision on the FASAP case might have negative repercussions.

“So we will perhaps inquire as to when that will be resolved,” Aquino told the Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines at Mandarin hotel in Makati City yesterday.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), on the other hand, rallied behind the SC.

In a statement yesterday, the IBP called for sobriety among the parties concerned, saying the recall order might be unprecedented but could be the proper action to correct the court’s error.

IBP general counsel Ramon Esguerra urged the FASAP to await resolution of their case. He

believes the SC just wanted to correct a procedural flaw in the case and did not actually rule against them.

“The court merely recalled the Sept. 7 ruling and did not resolve the case based on merit,” he explained.

Esguerra said the high court has already given assurance that the case is being prioritized.

“On the face of it, what we are concerned about is that the criticism (against the SC) is not yet ripe to be hurled. We are making a call for sobriety. We should remember the SC in its resolution is merely recalling and not reversing a decision,” Esguerra said.

Esguerra, who has been tasked to come up with an official IBP position on the issue, believes the protest of FASAP was premature.

“There is still no cause for apprehension. Until decided by the SC en banc we do not know yet and it would be premature for anyone to claim that there is flip-flopping on the part of the Supreme Court,” he stressed.

Esguerra also said the IBP as “officers of the court” would look deeply into the case.

Marquez, responding to the protest rally by some FASAP members on Tuesday at the SC, said the SC sympathizes with FASAP members who were frustrated by the recall order.

Some FASAP members could not hide their frustration and accused the high court of irregularity and succumbing to alleged undue pressure from PAL.

The FASAP branded the development as the “height of judicial insensitivity and arrogance.”

The SC first ruled on the case on July 22, 2008 and declared the retrenchment of 1,400 flight attendants illegal. PAL, for its part, filed a motion for reconsideration.

On Oct. 2, 2009, the SC ruled again in favor of the flight attendants and said the ruling was final and that no other pleadings will be entertained.

But on Jan. 2, 2011, PAL filed a second Motion for Reconsideration.

Last Sept. 7, the court resolved to deny PAL’s second Motion for Reconsideration and ruled with finality, in favor of FASAP.

But with the recall of the recent ruling, FASAP members expressed fears that it will pave the way for a possible reversal of the case.

Saving PAL

The recall of the ruling came weeks after PAL was besieged by wildcat strikes staged by its employees who would be retrenched due to the outsourcing program of the airline.

At the height of typhoon “Pedring” on Sept. 27, PAL’s workers staged a strike that resulted in the cancellation of flights. This involved the more than 2,000 workers who would be laid off by PAL due to outsourcing.

The Aquino administration upheld PAL’s decision but the union workers – the PAL Employees’ Association (PALEA) – were appealing Malacañang’s ruling.

Asked whether the government was not taking any more steps to help PAL operations normalize sooner or prevent any further complications, Aquino said the government had done its part to avoid service interruptions.

“The airline is in distress, they need a reformatting of their corporation to survive,” Aquino said.

The Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI) apparently took the cue from Aquino’s statement and said government financial institutions (GFIs) and government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs) can invest in PAL in order to help with flag carrier’s financial problems.

PCCI president Francis Chua said the Social Security System (SSS) and the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) could invest in PAL to help solve its capitalization problems.

Chua said that in Taiwan, the government has indirect stake in their local airlines.

“We don’t want PAL to close because it is the flag carrier,” Chua said. “We shouldn’t allow it to close, no matter what.”

Aside from investing in the airline directly, Chua said another option is for the government to lend to PAL through the GFIs.

Chua said the issue should be evaluated carefully and the interest of the employees and the management must be balanced.

He noted PAL has been hit by competition, specifically the influx of budget carriers like Cebu Pacific.

Chua said it is up to PAL to evaluate their strategy. “They may want to insist in their legacy but most people prefer cheaper fares. If they want to continue with their strategy it is okay but they must do something.”

Chua also noted the Employers’ Confederation of the Philippines (ECOP) is willing to sit down with the employees to discuss the issue.

ECOP earlier slammed the wildcat strike staged by PALEA resulting in the cancellation of flights that they described as “anarchy at its worst.”

The strike has forced PAL to cancel 172 domestic and international flights and in the process stranding 14,000 passengers. – With Aurea Calica, Elisa Osorio