PAL stewards petition Supreme Court to junk recall order

INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

The Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (Fasap) on Monday urged the Supreme Court to set aside its order recalling its decision reinstating 1,400 cabin crew members of Philippine Airlines who went on strike in 1998.

In a 15-page motion for reconsideration, Fasap argued the reinstatement ruling of the court’s Second Division on Sept. 7, 2011, was legally considered to be a decision of the entire tribunal. It had attained finality and therefore could not be legally recalled, Fasap said.

The high court recalled its ruling on October 14, saying it had been erroneously issued by the Second Division when the Special Third Division was supposed to handle the case.

“A decision by any of the Supreme Court’s three divisions is legally the decision of the Supreme Court itself,” Fasap protested, citing the Constitution’s principle of singularity of the high tribunal.

Fasap pointed to the high court’s ruling in “JG Summit Holdings Inc. v Court of Appeals” which said: “A decision or resolution of a Division is that of the Supreme Court and the Court en banc is not an appellate court to which decisions or resolutions of a Division may be appealed.”

The labor group asserted that the September ruling “remains valid regardless of any alleged technical infirmity arising from the application of the Supreme Court’s Internal Rules.”

It said a mix-up between the Second and Third Divisions on the handling of the case was a “harmless technicality.”

“Any alleged technical lapse, not being grounded on lack of jurisdiction, violation of due process or existence of fraud or collusion, cannot render the Sept. 7, 2011, resolution void so as to constitute an exception to the rule on immutability,” it said.

“Having attained finality,” the resolution was “already immutable and cannot legally be recalled,” Fasap asserted.

Fasap again pointed to a previous ruling of the high court that “subject to certain recognized exceptions,” the principle of immutability leaves a final and executory judgment undisturbed “as nothing further can be done except to execute it.”

“The only exceptions to the rule on the immutability of final judgments are the correction of clerical errors, the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, and void judgments. None of the above-mentioned exceptions are attendant in this case,” Fasap said.

The union noted that the recall order violated the group’s right to due process as their side was not heard.

“Fasap’s right to be informed of the legal basis for the recall…is a paramount component of due process and fair play,” the group said.

Fasap said they did not even see the letters of PAL lawyer Estelito Mendoza which led the court to issue the recall, and were not asked to comment.

The union also faulted the court for not clearly enumerating the legal reasons behind its recall order. This was a “fatal failure,” it added.

Fasap said Mendoza’s letter amounted to an illegal “third motion for reconsideration” after the Supreme Court had dismissed PAL’s two motions for reconsideration.

“How then could the letter of attorney Mendoza, which in effect is a Third Motion for Reconsideration, grounded on a harmless technicality, be entertained and even merit the recall order from the Honorable Court?” it added.