Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.
MODIFICATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This administrative matter concerns the aftermath of a Supreme Court decision in G.R. No. 178083, Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) v. Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL), et al. The original dispute involved FASAP's claim of illegal dismissal against PAL. The Supreme Court's Third Division initially ruled in favor of FASAP on July 22, 2008, finding PAL guilty of illegal dismissal. This decision was later affirmed with finality through a resolution on October 2, 2009, which explicitly stated that no further pleadings would be entertained. Procedural History: Following the denial of its first motion for reconsideration, PAL filed a second motion for reconsideration on November 3, 2009. Due to the retirement of the original ponente, the case was raffled to Justice Presbitero Velasco, Jr. of the newly constituted Third Division. On January 20, 2010, this division granted PAL's second motion for reconsideration, effectively reopening the case for review on the merits. Subsequently, due to reorganizations and inhibitions of various justices, the case was transferred through different divisions. On September 7, 2011, the Second Division issued an unsigned resolution denying PAL's second motion for reconsideration with finality. However, questions arose regarding the propriety of this resolution due to the complex procedural history and the application of various internal rules. The Petition: This administrative matter originated from letters sent by Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza, counsel for PAL, to the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court between September 13 and 22, 2011. These letters questioned the authority and composition of the Second Division that issued the September 7, 2011 resolution, seeking clarification on the procedural steps taken. In response to these inquiries and the potential jurisdictional issues raised, the Court en banc, on October 4, 2011, recalled the September 7, 2011 resolution. The Court en banc assumed jurisdiction over the merits of PAL's motions for reconsideration, confirming that the case should be raffled to either Justice Lucas P. Bersamin or Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, as they were the remaining members of the Special Third Division that originally ruled on the merits.
Issue(s)
Whether the September 7, 2011 Resolution of the Second Division was validly issued. Whether the Court en banc has the authority to recall its own resolution before finality. Whether the interpretation and application of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court (IRSC), specifically Rule 2, Section 7 and Rule 8, Section 3, were correctly applied in the handling of the case.
Ruling
The Court en banc confirmed its assumption of jurisdiction over the resolution of the merits of Philippine Airlines, Inc.'s motions for reconsideration, effectively recalling the September 7, 2011 resolution of the Second Division. The case was ordered to be raffled to either Justice Lucas P. Bersamin or Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, as the remaining Members of the Special Third Division that originally ruled on the merits of the case.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the September 7, 2011 Resolution: The Court found that the handling of the case, particularly the acceptance of the second MR and subsequent rulings, was attended by procedural irregularities. The initial acceptance of the second MR by Justice Velasco, who was not a member of the original divisions that ruled on the merits, and the subsequent handling of the case by different divisions due to reorganizations and inhibitions, raised questions about the authority of the Second Division to issue the September 7, 2011 Resolution. The Court noted that the application of A.M. No. 99-8-09-SC and the IRSC provisions on inhibition and the resolution of motions for reconsideration led to conflicting interpretations, suggesting that the case should have been re-raffled to members who participated in the original decision or resolution. On the authority of the Court en banc to recall its resolution: The Court affirmed its power to recall its own orders and resolutions before they become final. The September 7, 2011 Resolution was recalled on October 4, 2011, before the period for finality expired. This action was taken to address the legal uncertainties and procedural questions that arose, ensuring that the case was properly handled and to avoid potential accusations of flip-flopping. The recall was not a ruling on the merits but a procedural step to ensure the validity of the proceedings. On the interpretation and application of the IRSC: The Court clarified the interplay between Rule 2, Section 7 and Rule 8, Section 3 of the IRSC. It held that Rule 2, Section 7, which deals with the resolution of motions for reconsideration when the ponente is unavailable, should prevail over the general rule on inhibition of a Member-in-Charge under Rule 8, Section 3, when the case involves a review of an already issued decision or resolution. This is because Section 7 specifically contemplates situations where the writer of the ruling is no longer available, necessitating a review by those who intimately know the facts and merits. The Court concluded that based on this interpretation, the case should have been re-raffled to remaining members who participated in the original rulings, namely Justices Peralta and Bersamin.
Main Doctrine
The Court en banc confirmed its assumption of jurisdiction over the resolution of the merits of Philippine Airlines, Inc.'s motions for reconsideration, effectively recalling the September 7, 2011 resolution of the Second Division. The case was ordered to be raffled to either Justice Lucas P. Bersamin or Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, as the remaining Members of the Special Third Division that originally ruled on the merits.