MANILA, Philippine—Retrenched employees of Philippine Airlines (PAL) have asked the Supreme Court to investigate the actions of a Pasay regional trial court (RTC) judge who issued restraining orders against legal protest actions, despite knowing that the case would be raffled off to another magistrate.
In a letter to court administrator Midas Marquez, the PAL Employees Association (Palea) also asked the high tribunal to reprimand a court sheriff who acted on the restraining order, despite knowledge of alleged irregularities.
“The said officers of the judiciary have acted in a manner that violates the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary,” Palea president Gerry Rivera said.
He referred to Executive Judge Edwin Ramizo and Deputy Sheriff Virgilio Villar, both from the Pasay RTC.
“I request that, after the conduct of the investigation, this Honorable Office take whatever disciplinary action it may deem appropriate,” Rivera said.
Last October 17, Judge Ramizo issued a three-day temporary restraining order (TRO) against Palea’s protest picket at the PAL in-flight center near Ninoy Aquino International Airport (Naia) terminal 2. The TRO sought to bar Palea members from disrupting operations of PAL.
Palea complained that the court had no jurisdiction over the matter since it was a labor dispute between PAL and its retrenched employees.
“While PAL’s complaint does not contain any reference to Palea or to the fact that the union is currently involved in a labor dispute with PAL, it is easily discernible,” Rivera said, noting that the case has been heavily reported in the news over the past few months.
“It can be said that the existence of the labor dispute has become public knowledge,” Palea said. The case stems from PAL’s dismissal of 2,600 employees, who were replaced by third-party service providers.
Another irregularity was Judge Ramizo’s issuance of a second order ex parte, or without hearing Palea’s side, ordering the enforcement of the TRO by the court sheriff’s office. This was issued on October 18, despite the case being scheduled for raffle to another judge that same day.
“(The second order) was based on an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion that was filed by PAL on the same day that the Order was issued, October 18, 2011. This Urgent Ex-Parte Motion was filed at 1:24 p.m. on October 18, 2011, a few minutes before the scheduled raffle of the case,” Palea said.
Palea said they had already been notified that the case would be raffled to a different judge the day before, which meant Judge Ramizo knew that the case would soon be off his hands.
“Instead of allowing the branch that will eventually handle the case, Executive Judge Ramizo hastily issued the second order,” Palea said.
Palea also complained about Villar, the court sheriff who tried to enforce Judge Ramizo’s order on October 19. Palea said in a hearing earlier that day, Pasay RTC Judge Maria Rosaro-Ragasa—to whom the case was eventually raffled to—issued a status quo order on the case.
The union said there was an agreement “to maintain the status quo of the case wherein plaintiff PAL undertook to observe what was existing at the time the TRO was issued, while defendants promised not to do anything that would aggravate the present situation.”
Palea said Villar proceeded with this attempt to dismantle Palea’s picket near the airport, ignoring Judge Ragasa’s order. The union said Villar was accompanied by several unidentified men. This resulted in a stand-off, which forced PAL management to call of the dispersal attempt to avoid violence.
“The commotion could have escalated into a major violent clash between the unidentified men in blue pants and white shirts, and Palea members and supporters,” Palea said.
On Friday, Ragasa thumbed down PAL’s request to for an extension on the original TRO. PAL said its legal team would study its next available legal options, describing the denial “highly unfortunate.”
“PAL lawyers presented sworn testimonies and photos of protesters hampering the flow of operations by setting up illegal checkpoints and barricades and subjecting PAL employees, its service providers and company vehicles to various forms of harassment,” the company said.