What Went Before: Supreme Court’s ruling on Fasap case vs PAL
In October 2011, the Supreme Court recalled its “final” decision ordering Philippine Airlines (PAL) to reinstate 1, 400 members of the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (Fasap) purportedly because a wrong division issued the ruling.
The two-page resolution dated October 4, came after PAL’s counsel, Estelito Mendoza, wrote the tribunal and questioned the ruling of the court’s Second Division.
Court spokesperson Midas Marquez said the court en banc had to recall the order because the case was supposed to have been handled by the tribunal’s Special Third Division and not its Second Division.
The case stemmed from a PAL announcement on June 15, 1998, that it was laying off 5,000 employees, including 1,400 members of Fasap, purportedly to avoid bankruptcy.
Reversal of ruling
Fasap lodged a case against PAL for illegal dismissal and in July 2000, the National Labor Relations Commission ordered the attendants reinstated with back wages.
Upon appeal by PAL, the commission in May 2004 reversed its ruling and Fasap went to the Court of Appeals, but lost.
On July 22, 2008, the Supreme Court said PAL had failed to show that it was in such dire financial straits and ordered the company to reinstate the 1,400 Fasap members with full back wages and benefits.
In October 2009, the court threw out PAL’s motion for reconsideration.
PAL lodged a second motion for reconsideration, but on Sept. 7, 2011, the Supreme Court’s Second Division upheld its previous ruling and said it would no longer entertain further appeals.
On Oct. 17, shortly after the Supreme Court recalled its earlier ruling, Fasap filed a 15-page motion for reconsideration and argued that the Second Division’s ruling had attained finality and therefore could not be legally recalled.
Article 3 of the impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Renato Corona alleges betrayal of public trust for “allowing” the Supreme Court’s flip-flopping in several cases deemed final and executory, among them the Fasap case against PAL. Inquirer Research
Source: PDI Archives
