Justice Marvic Leonen. INQUIRER/ MARIANNE BERMUDEZ
The Supreme Court’s decision declaring as legal the retrenchment of some 1,400 flight attendants and stewards of the Philippine Airlines (PAL) in 1998 “involves the miraculous resurrection of the dead,” Associate Justice Marvic Leonen said in his dissenting opinion.
In a 55-page decision penned by Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin, the Court en banc abandoned its October 2, 2009 that affirmed with finality its July 22, 2008 ruling declaring as illegal the dismissal of members of the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP).
The October 2, 2009 ruling by the high court’s third division attained finality on Nov. 4, 2009. Once it attained finality, no other pleadings will be entertained by the high court.
Citing Rule 52 Section 2 of the Rules of Court, Leonen said “therefore, no motion for reconsideration or a resolution denying a motion for reconsideration of a decision may be filed by the same party. Allowing second and subsequent motions for reconsideration of the same decision prevents the resolution of judicial controversies.”
Leonen added that even in the high court’s Internal Rules, there is nothing which states that the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration of a decision will not lapse into finality.
The 2009 ruling written by then Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago denied for lack of merit the motion for reconsideration filed by PAL.
It did not give credence to the claim of PAL that it was suffering from financial distress caused by pilots’ strike on June 5, 1998, which justified the retrenchment of the flight attendants.
In that same ruling, the high court ordered PAL to immediately reinstate the cabin crew or pay back wages and separation pay of those who can no longer be reinstated. It remanded the case to the labor arbiter “solely for the purpose of computing the exact amount of the award” to be given to the dismissed employees.”
The case was moved to the high court’s second division following the retirement of Ynares-Santiago. The second division, on September 2011, denied the second motion for reconsideration by PAL.
“The judgment here having attained finality, the Court En Banc-as if an appellate court reviewing a case that the Supreme Court has already reviewed three (3) times-cannot now take cognizance of the case and review it for the fourth time because, suddenly, the case became of sufficient importance to merit the En Banc’s attention,” Leonen said.
However, the Court en banc (full court) issued a resolution taking cognizance of the letters and motion filed by PAL’s counsel Estelito Mendoza questioning the series of transfers the case and asking the Court to recall its September 2011 resolution. The letters were docketed as administrative matter.
“The reopening of a final case was done through a back door: an administrative matter docketed separately from this case,” Leonen noted.
“It could not be another means to resurrect a case. To do so is highly irregular, suspect, and violative of due process of law. To mask this as being in the interest of justice is to mask its intention to rob labor of a case decided three (3) times in its favor,” he said.
The magistrate added that “the actions of the majority of this Court En Banc in a separate administrative matter, reviving a second motion for reconsideration already decided upon and reversing a decision decided in favor of the union three (3) times, creates an ominous cloud that will besmirch our legitimacy.”
Considering the high court’s actions, Leonen said this is “an extraordinary case. Like in the Book of Revelation, it involves the miraculous resurrection of the dead: in this case, a dead case.”
READ: SC affirms 2006 CA decision upholding PAL retrenchment