7 justices defend CJ on ruling recall
They are supposed to be barred from testifying, but seven justices of the Supreme Court ( SC) issued a resolution yesterday defending Chief Justice Renato Corona’s actions in the case involving the employees’ union of Philippine Airlines (PAL) in 1998.
In a 30-page resolution, the seven justices held that Corona’s participation was only ministerial in the recall of the Sept. 7, 2011 ruling. Citing a procedural lapse, the ruling had declared – supposedly with finality – as illegal the retrenchment of over 1,400 members of the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP).
The justices cleared Corona of misdeed, as alleged in the Articles of Impeachment, for the ruling on the retrenchment of PAL flight attendants.
They junked the allegation in the dissent of Associate Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno, President Aquino’s first appointee to the high court, that Corona had a hand in the recall order.
“As can be seen from the above narration, the Chief Justice acted only on the recommendation of the ruling division, since he had inhibited himself from participation in the case long before,” read the final point in the ruling penned by Justice Arturo Brion.
The majority ruling described the allegation as mere
“confusion brought about by the Chief Justice’s role as the presiding officer of the Court (particularly in its meeting of Oct. 4, 2011), and the fact that the four most senior justices (Corona, Justices Antonio Carpio, Presbitero Velasco Jr. and Teresita Leonardo-de Castro) inhibited from participating in the case.”
Corona had inhibited on the FASAP case since it was filed in 2008. He only referred to fellow magistrates an official letter from PAL lawyer Estelito Mendoza, which is allowed under SC rules.
“In the absence of any clear personal malicious participation, it is neither correct nor proper to hold the Chief Justice personally accountable for the collegial ruling of the Court,” the resolution said.
Justices Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Roberto Abad, Jose Perez, Jose Mendoza and Bienvenido Reyes concurred with the ruling.
The majority of SC magistrates also branded as “disturbing” another claim in Sereno’s dissent on “alleged silence of, or lack of objection from, the members of the ruling divi- sion during the Oct. 4, 2011 deliberations.”
“The lack of a very active role in the arguments can only be attributable to the members of the ruling division’s unanimous agreement to recall their ruling immediately.
“To be sure, it was not due to any conspiracy to reverse their ruling to affirm the previous court rulings already made in favor of FASAP; the (SC) division’s response was simply dictated by the legal uncertainties that existed and the deep division among them on the proper reaction to Atty. Mendoza’s letters,” the high tribunal explained.
With this ruling, the SC has affirmed its recall order and denied FASAP’S motion for reconsideration filed on Oct. 17 last year.
“The recall of the Sept. 7, 2011 Resolution of the ruling division was a proper and legal move to make under applicable laws and rules, and the indisputably unusual developments and circumstances of the case,” the court held.
The SC stressed the recall order “was made by the Court on its own before the ruling’s finality pursuant to the Court’s power of control over its orders and resolutions.”
“Thus, no due process issue ever arose,” the SC added.
Justice Sereno maintained her dissent and was joined by Justice Estela Perlas-bernabe.
In her 52-page dissenting opinion, Sereno believes the recall order has set a dangerous precedent as it “opened a Pandora’s box full of future troubles for Philippine judicial decision-making.”
In its original ruling, the high court ordered the reinstatement with full back wages of 1,400 flight attendants who claimed to have been illegally retrenched by PAL at the height of labor strikes in 1998 – an amount that could reportedly reach P3 billion.
The latest ruling also confirmed that the SC sitting as full- court would again rule on the merits involving the 13-year-old labor case.
The SC said the case should now be raffled off either to Justice Bersamin or Justice Peralta, the only remaining members of the Special Third Division that originally ruled on the merits of the case.
The FASAP case is among the grounds raised by the House prosecution in impeachment charges against Corona.
Prosecutors even presented in trial FASAP president Roberto Anduiza as witness last month. He testified on their long running labor row and accused Corona of meddling in the case and facilitating the recall of the supposedly final ruling that favored their cause.
The SC had already justified the recall order, saying it was caused by a procedural flaw.
SC spokesman Midas Marquez had revealed that the case was first assigned to the 3rd division of the high tribunal with retired Justice Consuelo Ynares-santiago as memberin-charge.
When Santiago retired in 2009, the case was transferred to a special division composed of her replacement and original members.
Membership of divisions in the high court has since also changed due to reshuffle following retirement of justices.
“Many members of that third division had retired and the justices have also been reshuffled, so this case found its way to the 2nd division.
“What could have happened – I’m not saying this is what re- ally happened since the court will still look into it – was that a regular member of the 2nd division who was designated to sit as special member of the special 3rd division that was handling the case thought they were ruling on it as a regular division,” Marquez suggested.
Marquez said the SC in full decided to take up the case “to avoid further confusion,” adding that the justices are expected to “decide on all issues including possible action on the cause of confusion.”
He said the case was also raffled to a new member-incharge yesterday afternoon. The full court is expected to rule on the second motion for reconsideration of PAL.
The SC first ruled on the case in July 2008.
The case stemmed from PAL’S decision to dismiss on June 15, 1998 some 5,000 of its employees in order to cut costs and mitigate further losses. This was during the Asian financial crisis.
During that period, PAL claimed to have incurred P90 billion in liabilities, almost the same level as its assets of only P85 billion.
PAL adopted “Plan 14” where it reduced its fleet of aircraft to 14 from 54 that resulted in the dismissal of more than 1,400 flight attendants and stewards and other cabin crew personnel.
A worker was supposedly retrenched based on his or her performance for the year 1997 alone.
It was later amended to “Plan 22,” which forced the firm to rehire some 140 of the workers previously retrenched.
To appease other employees, PAL chairman and chief executive officer Lucio Tan offered to transfer shares of stock to employees and three seats in the Board of Directors. This was on the condition that the collective bargaining agreement with employees would be suspended.
The employees, however, rejected the idea.
Mass actions forced PAL to close shop despite the approval of its rehabilitation blueprint from the corporate regulator.
Through the intervention of then President Joseph Estrada, the workers issued a counter-offer. The proposal, which included the hiring of retrenched workers, was ratified on Oct. 7, 1998.
PAL resumed operations immediately after, but the labor case continued.