Damaging practice

It is just too bad that our Supreme Court (SC), the last bastion of truth and justice and the court of last resort in upholding the peoples’ legally demandable and enforceable rights, has issued a resolution in the PAL flight attendants’ and stewards’ case generally perceived as dubious and irregular enough as to seriously dent its already damaged reputation.

As lawyer and “officer of the court” in the administration of justice I still want to believe that the SC will not recall a ruling that it has already declared “final” if it has no plausible reason for doing so; that all its actions are based on reason and guided by law rather than flagrantly arbitrary and baseless. Indeed it is crucial in a democracy under the rule of law that the people’s trust and confidence in our courts especially in the highest court of the land will not be permanently eroded. We should all be concerned therefore in the preservation of that trust and confidence in our courts.

Admittedly however, it is extremely difficult if not futile to defend the SC and to maintain that there is absolutely nothing wrong with its latest action in the FASAP case. The records show that: (1) on July 22, 2008, the SC already found and declared the retrenchment and dismissal of the 1,400 flight attendants way back in 1998 as illegal; (2) On October 2, 2009 it denied PAL’s motion for reconsideration and declared the ruling in favor of the flight attendants “final and that no other pleadings will be entertained”; (3) despite said ruling, PAL persisted and still filed a second motion for reconsideration on January 2, 2011; (4) Last September 7, 2011 however the SC second division again denied PAL’s second motion for reconsideration and ruled with finality in favor of FASAP; but (5) on October 10, 2011, the SC issued a resolution withdrawing the September 7 decision of its second division citing “misapplication of rules”! The SC said that the decision should have been made by the special third division, not the second division.

Recalling and reconsidering a ruling already twice declared final because of mere procedural flaw cannot help but arouse suspicion and raise lots of eyebrows. The SC explained that it is merely following the rules in doing so. It appears to be correct in this regard except that its own rules also require that PAL must first ask and be granted permission to file another motion for reconsideration before it should have reconsidered and recalled the September 7 decision. In this case however the SC acted on a mere letter of PAL’s lawyer and not on any motion or pleading! The explanation thus raises more questions instead of giving a satisfactory and plausible answer.

One of these questions is whether it is still necessary to reconsider the September 7 “final” decision on mere procedural error if there is nothing wrong anyway with the decision itself as previously found by the second division not once but twice. Recalling it for review en banc only means that something is wrong with the division’s findings which can still be overturned. Thus we cannot blame the FASAP members for entertaining fears that the SC en banc may still eventually rule in favor of PAL.

It is really hard to defend the recent SC ruling in the FASAP case especially to non-lawyers and to parties-litigants who had the same experience. In fact two of these litigants approached and requested me to explain to them the SC actions in their cases which they found hard to accept and understand. And I found myself also at a loss.

The first case is entitled Citibank vs. Paragas, G.R. 159302. The party here, Rosita Tan Paragas was dismissed by Citibank on September 4, 1997 after almost 18 years of employment. Upon her complaint, the NLRC found her termination from the service without just cause and ordered Citibank to give her separation pay and retirement benefits. Citibank appealed this ruling to the Court of Appeals but the latter still ruled in her favor and upheld the NLRC decision. Citibank then went to the Supreme Court. But in a resolution dated September 24 2003, the SC dismissed Citibank’s petition for having been filed out of time, The SC also declared that even if the petition was filed on time, it would still deny the same as it lacks affidavit and proof of service to the CA. Finally, on January 14, 2004, the SC denied Citibank’s second motion for reconsideration and emphatically declared that “This denial is final” Surprisingly however, on August 17, 2005 or after almost two years since it dismissed the Citibank petition, the SC made a sudden turn around and reinstated it and eventually reversed the ruling of the NLRC and the CA in 2006. Since then, Ms. Paragas had been writing the SC imploring the justices to take a second hard look at her case en banc. She had written the SC 19 times in a span of 7 years, but her letters were only “noted without action”, in striking contrast to the prompt action to a single letter from PAL’s lawyer in the FASAP case.

The second case is G.R. 172628 entitled “Coats Manila Bay Inc. (Coats) vs. Ortega and Montero”. The two women employees here were likewise dismissed from the service due to redundancy on June 15, 2000 after working for 24 and 23 years. The Labor Arbiter found their dismissal illegal and ordered their reinstatement. While the NLRC reversed the Arbiter’s ruling, the Court of Appeals (CA) ruled in their favor and set aside the NLRC decision. Coats appealed the CA ruling to the SC. But on January 31, 2006, the SC (3rd division) resolved to deny the petition for failing to sufficiently show that the CA committed a reversible error. Then on November 29, 2006 it denied Coats’ motion for reconsideration with “finality” and forwarded the case to the Judgment Division for entry of judgment. But to their surprise, the SC 2nd division reopened the case on another motion for reconsideration of Coats and eventually ruled in its favor on February 13, 2009.

It is really hard to explain these apparent flip-flopping at the highest level of our courts. Indeed any explanation will not easily erase the perception that something amiss happened especially considering that the favored parties are big businesses against lowly employees. It is hoped that the SC can “finally” put an end to this practice. –Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star)