SC procedures and flip-flops

Last September the Supreme Court Second Division ruled with finality on a labor dispute that had dragged for 13 years. Reinstate the 1,400 retrenched flight attendants, it ordered the Philippine Airlines. A month later the SC en banc recalled the order due to a technical oversight. It should have been the Special Third Division, not the Second, which studied the case. That is based on A.M. No. 99-8-09-SC, adopted two years ago, entitled “Amended Rules on Who Shall Resolve Motions for Reconsideration of Decisions or Signed Resolutions in Cases Assigned to the Division of the Court.”

The Regular Third Division first ordered the employees’ rehiring in July 2008. Justice Ynares-Santiago, as ponente (justice-on-case), denied in October 2009 PAL’s first motion for reconsideration (MR). Ynares-Santiago and two other members of the Regular Third, Justices Chico-Nazario and Nachura, have since retired. The last two, Justices Leonardo-de Castro and Peralta, were reassigned to other divisions. This automatically made the latter compose a Special Third.

The 2009 rule comes into play: if a ponente retires, a new one shall be designated from among the members of the (special) division. This replacement shall handle all subsequent motions for reconsideration or clarification, for deliberation in the special division.

PAL happened to file a second MR. To determine the new ponente this should have been raffled off to Leonardo-de Castro or Peralta, as members of the Special Third. Then, three other justices should have been chosen by raffle to complete the special division.

So based on the rule, the proper division to handle PAL’s second MR is the Special Third, not the Regular Second.

Still, the case was assigned to the Regular Second, which studied it, unaware of the technical inadvertence. So some lawyers opine that the Regular Second’s reinstatement order of September 2011 should stand. Internal rules, they say, do not deprive jurisdiction of justices to decide cases brought before them.

* * *

The technicality issue is touchy because the en banc acted based on a mere letter of PAL lawyer Estelito Mendoza. For some lawyers the letter was an attempt to skirt the rule prohibiting endless MRs. And since it was a letter instead of a motion, the flight attendants were deprived of due notice of goings-on. Moreover, the jurisdiction issue should have been raised while the case was pending in the Second Division. But all this is now up to the SC en banc to decide.

  This is not the first time Mendoza’s correspondence with the SC caused a stir. In January 2009 the League of Cities protested a similar letter in which Mendoza was able to convince the justices to reopen a decided case. It was about the unconstitutionality of 16 laws that created 16 new cities unqualified for such classification. Twice since 2008 the SC en banc invalidated the laws. An entry of judgment already was made. Still Mendoza kept filing more than the one allowable MR, and the SC kept entertaining him. In the end the SC reversed itself and adopted Mendoza’s line that the 16 cities were constitutional.

The PAL and 16 cities’ cases are the not first times either that the SC has reopened long decided cases and reversed itself. Three instances occurred recently: Valeroso v. Court of Appeals, People of the Philippines v. Romualdez, and United Planters Sugar Milling Co. v. Court of Appeals. The cases already were published in the SC Reports Annotated, as 598 SCRA 41 (2009), 587 SCRA 123 (2009), and 583 SCRA 63 (2009), respectively. Still the SC granted second MRs, then overturned its rulings.

There are more. In Manotok v. Heirs of Homer Barque, 574 SCRA 468 (2008), the en banc reopened a division ruling long entered in judgment, and remanded it to the Court of Appeals. In Astorga v. People, 437 SCRA 152 (2004), the SC granted a second MR after denying the first with finality, and then reversed itself to acquit the accused. In Ynson v. Court of Appeals, 387 SCRA 30 (2002), the SC by minute resolution granted a third MR and recalled the entry of judgment.

* * *

Two little known items from history, courtesy of Francisco E. Lirio, former mayor of Tanauan, Batangas, and member of the province’s historical committee. In relation to my item Friday on Miguel Malvar, the last Katipunan general to succumb to the US forces in 1902, he recounts:

“Reading your column, I cannot help but recall my last chat with President Erap shortly before his term of office abruptly ended. I told him that since General Malvar was the unanimous choice as head of the revolutionary government after the capture of President Aguinaldo, he could be considered the second President of the Republic. If so, then he, President Erap, is the 14th President, not the 13th, which he considered unlucky for him. Smiling, he immediately called someone at the National Historical Commission (name I can’t recall) to quickly complete the research and justification. Soon afterward he was out of office and in jail for trial for plunder.

* * *

Fred Gabot, past chairman of the Philippine Postal Corp. and its Provident Fund Office, takes issue with allegations of missing funds in the millions of pesos (Gotcha, 14 Oct. 2011). Certain employees had brought such gripes to the House of Reps, the Senate, and the Office of the President. Through official documents he belied them.

* * *

Is it true that a survey was run recently on mining, and that among the findings were a high public awareness of it (up to nine in 10 Filipinos of all classes), and that most (seven in 10) believe it endangers the environment, the workers and the communities around the mines? Out with the results, please.

* * *

Catch Sapol radio show, Saturdays, 8-10 a.m., DWIZ, (882-AM).

E-mail: [email protected]