Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

IN RE: LETTERS OF ATTY. ESTELITO P. MENDOZA re: G.R. No. 178083 FLIGHT ATTENDANTS AND STEWARDS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (FASAP) vs. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES (PAL), PATRIA CHIONG et al. A.M. No. 11-10-1-SC FLIGHT ATTENDANTS AND STEWARDS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (FASAP), Movant, x---------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

The FLIGHT ATTENDANTS AND STEWARDS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (FASAP), by counsel, respectfully moves for the reconsideration of the Resolution1 of the Honorable Court en banc dated 04 October 2011 in A.M. No. 11-10-1-SC recalling the Resolution dated 07 September 2011 issued by the Second Division in G.R. No. 178083, and in support thereof, states:

FASAP received a copy of the Resolution on 11 October 2011

Page 2 of 10

GROUNDS

I. THE RESOLUTION OF THE SECOND DIVISION IN G.R. NO. 178083 IS A VALID FINAL AND EXECUTORY JUDGMENT. IT IS THEREFORE LEGALLY IMMUTABLE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RECALLED.

1. established.

The doctrine on the immutability of a final judgment is well

2.

This most basic and long standing rule is as follows:

A decision which has attained finality becomes immutable and unalterable. This quality of

immutability precludes the modification of a final judgment, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law. And this

postulate holds true whether the modification is made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court in the land. that, The orderly administration of justice requires at the risk of occasional errors, the

judgments/resolutions of a court must reach a point of finality set by law. The noble purpose is to write finis to dispute once and for all. This is a fundamental principle in our justice system, without which there would be no end to litigations.2 (Emphasis supplied)

In the Matter of the Heirship (Intestate Estates) of the Late Hermogenes Rodriguez, Antonio Rodriguez, Macario J. Rodriguez, Delfin Rodriguez and Consuelo Rodriguez and Settlement of the their Estates - Rene B. Pascual, Petitioner vs. Jaime Robles, Respondent, G.R. No. 182645, 22 June 2011 citing Mocorro, Jr. v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 178366, 28 July 2008 [560 SCRA 362]

Page 3 of 10

3.

In Airline Pilots Association of the Philippines vs. Philippine Airlines,

Inc.,3 the Honorable Court ruled that subject to certain recognized exceptions, the principle of immutability leaves a final and executory judgment undisturbed as nothing further can be done except to execute it.4

4.

The only exceptions to the rule on the immutability of final judgments

are (1) the correction of clerical errors, (2) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, and (3) void judgments. x x x.5 None of the above-mentioned exceptions are attendant in this case.

5.

The 07 September 2011 Resolution of the Second Division of the

Honorable Court denying the second motion for reconsideration of Philippine Airlines, Inc. of the 22 July 2008 Decision in G.R. No. 1780836 is a valid final and executory decision rendered by the Honorable Court on the merits of the case, and in the proper exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. It is therefore immutable and unalterable.

6.

The jurisdiction of the Second Division of the Honorable Court to Under the

render the 07 September 2011 Resolution is beyond all question. lower courts as may be established by law.7

Constitution, judicial power shall be vested in ONE Supreme Court and in such Because of this constitutional

principle of singularity of the Supreme Court, it is thus of no moment whichever of its divisions issued the Resolution. A decision by any of the Supreme Courts three divisions is legally the decision of the Supreme Court itself. As held in J.G. Summit Holdings, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals:8

Again, we emphasize that a decision or resolution of a Division is that of the Supreme Court and the Court

3 4

G.R. No. 168382, 06 June 2011 Footnote omitted 5 Supra note 2 6 Entitled Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc, Patria Chiong et al. 7 Article VIII, Section 1, first paragraph, Constitution 8 G.R. No. 124293, 31 January 2005 [450 SCRA 169, 185]

Page 4 of 10

en banc is not an appellate court to which decisions or resolutions of a Division may be appealed.9 7. Thus, the 07 September 2011 Resolution remains valid regardless of

any alleged technical infirmity arising from the application of the Supreme Courts Internal Rules. In other words, any alleged technical lapse, not being grounded on lack of jurisdiction, violation of due process or existence of fraud or collusion, cannot render the 07 September 2011 Resolution void so as to constitute an exception to the rule on immutability.

8.

For the above reasons, the 07 September 2011 Resolution issued by

the Second Division of the Honorable Court, having attained finality, is already immutable and cannot legally be recalled.

II. THE RESOLUTION RECALLING THE 07 SEPTEMBER 2011 RESOLUTION IN G.R. NO. 178083 DOES NOT PROVIDE THE REASON THEREFOR. CONSEQUENTLY, SUCH RECALL IS VOID FOR BEING VIOLATIVE OF DUE PROCESS.

9.

With all due respect, it is the position of movant FASAP that it is the

recall order of 04 October 2011 instead which is void for having been issued in violation of the Constitution.

10.

Article VIII, Section 14 of the Constitution provides that (n)o

decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.

11.

In the instant case, the Honorable Court en banc recalled the Second

Divisions 07 September 2011 Resolution in G.R. No. 178083 without providing any reason for such recall. The en banc Resolution dated 04 October 2011 merely

Footnotes omitted

Page 5 of 10

reads: the Court En Banc further resolves to recall the resolution dated September 7, 2011 issued by the Second Division in this case.

12.

In this regard, belated yet seemingly unsuccessful attempts before

mass media to explain the recall of the 07 September 2011 Resolution cannot work to cure or remedy the fatal failure to provide any legal basis for the 04 October 2011 Resolution.

13.

FASAPs right to be informed of the legal basis for the recall of the 07

September 2011 Resolution of the Honorable Court is a paramount component of due process and fair play. This is especially true as the concomitant right of some 1,400 FASAP members and that of their families to execute an already final and executory decision is adversely affected by said recall. In light of the foregoing, the 04 October 2011 Resolution of the Honorable Court should be reconsidered and set aside for being violative of due process of law.

III.

THE RESOLUTION RECALLING THE 07 SEPTEMBER 2011 RESOLUTION IN G.R. NO. 178083 IS ALSO VOID FOR AGAIN BEING VIOLATIVE OF DUE PROCESS, ARISING AS IT DOES FROM AN EX-PARTE CONSIDERATION OF MERE LETTERS FROM COUNSEL OF THE PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC.

14.

It is also the submission of FASAP that it was deprived of the right to

be heard on the matter of the recall order and was thus again denied its constitutionally guaranteed right to due process of law.

15.

The records show that herein movant FASAP, which is a party to the

case, was never furnished by the counsel for PAL with copies of his letters subject matter of the instant Administrative Matter.

Page 6 of 10

16.

Equally important, the Honorable Court acted upon the said letters by

peremptorily recalling the 07 September 2011 Resolution of the Second Division without giving FASAP the opportunity to comment on or oppose the said letters.

17.

Notice and hearing, the rudimentary elements of due process, are thus

clearly absent under the circumstances. Again, this notwithstanding that the recall order adversely affects the substantive rights of FASAPs retrenched members.

IV. THE RECALL OF THE 07 SEPTEMBER 2011 RESOLUTION IN THE INSTANT ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER IS NOT A VALID EXERCISE OF THE HONORABLE COURTS FUNCTIONS, WHETHER JUDICIAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE.

18.

There is nothing in the Constitution, or in any law or rule for that

matter, which grants the Honorable Court the authority to recall a final and executory judgment, such as the 07 September 2011 Resolution.

19.

Article VIII, section 5 (2) defines scope of the appellate jurisdiction of

the Court as follows:

(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in: (a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question. (b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto. (c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue. (d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher. (e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.

Page 7 of 10

20.

To recall a valid final and executory decision does not fall among

the above enumerated powers of the Supreme Court under the Constitution. 21. This is especially true when the Honorable Court exercises purely

administrative functions as in the instant Administrative Matter docketed as A.M. No. 11-10-1, where the Honorable Court entertained the letters of Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza regarding the 07 September 2011 Resolution in G.R. No. 178083. 22. Certainly, the recall of a valid final and executory decision in a case

rendered in the Honorable Courts exercise of its judicial functions cannot be deemed a proper exercise of its administrative functions. The Supreme Courts Internal Rules enumerates its administrative functions as follows:

Rule 4. Section 3. Administrative functions of the Court.

The administrative functions of the Court en banc consist of, but are not limited to, the following: (a) the discipline of justices, judges and court personnel, whether by en banc or by Division, subject to matters assignable to the Divisions, disciplinary matters involving justices, judges and court personnel; (b) the temporary assignment of judges to other stations as public interest may require; (c) the transfer of cases, from one court, administrative area or judicial region, to another, or the transfer of venue of the trial of cases to avoid miscarriage of justice; (d) the amendment, modification or revocation of administrative orders and circulars issued by the Court; (e) the policy consideration and determination of matters and issues; and (f) matters involving the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) or the Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA) in the exercise of the Courts supervisory authority over them.

23.

This is not to say that the Supreme Court, in the performance of its

administrative authority, cannot take cognizance of or entertain the letters of Atty. Mendoza. Under the circumstances, the High Tribunal may validly determine in these instant proceedings if indeed there was a lapse, order the investigation

Page 8 of 10

thereof and even discipline those responsible therefor. Such are clearly within the scope of the Supreme Courts administrative functions.

24.

However, the Supreme Court may have well exceeded its

administrative authority in this case when it proceeded to recall an immutable final judgment rendered in the proper proceedings without any showing that the same is void, and notwithstanding that the substantive rights of so many have already vested.

25.

Besides, the 07 September 2011 Resolution was already a denial with

finality of Philippine Airlines Inc.s Second Motion for Reconsideration in G.R. No. 178083. It bears emphasis that a third motion for reconsideration cannot anymore be entertained in the case.

26.

In the above-captioned Administrative Matter, however, instead of

guarding against any circumvention of the proscription against the filing of a third motion for reconsideration, the Supreme Court en banc treated Atty. Mendozas letters as if these were an allowable third motion for reconsideration of the 07 September 2011 Resolution in G.R. No. 178083, and even acted thereon through its recall order. More to the point, even a Second Motion for Reconsideration can only be entertained in the higher interest of justice, i.e., when the assailed decision is not only legally erroneous, but is likewise patently unjust and potentially capable of causing unwarranted and irremediable injury or damage to the parties.10 How then could the letters of Atty. Mendoza, which in effect is a Third Motion for Reconsideration grounded on harmless technicality, be entertained and even merit the recall order from the Honorable Court?

27.

With all due respect, the authority to recall a final and executory

judgment is simply not among the judicial and administrative powers vested in the Honorable Court. Not having any constitutional or legal basis, the recall of the 07 September 2011 Resolution must perforce be stricken down.
10

Section 3, Rule 15, The Internal Rules of the Supreme Court [A.M. NO. 10-4-20 SC]

Page 9 of 10

RELIEF

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Resolution dated 04 October 2011 in A.M. No. 11-10-1-SC be RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE and that the 07 September 2011 Resolution in G.R. No. 178083 be REINSTATED.

Other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises, are likewise prayed for.

Pasig City for Manila. 17 October 2011.

KAPUNAN IMPERIAL PANAGUITON & BONGOLAN Collaborating Counsel for FASAP 5th Floor, Greenrich Mansion Pearl Drive cor. Lourdes Road Ortigas Center, Pasig City Telephone Nos. 631-1136; 631-1151 Fax No. 633-9163 Email: kipblaw@tri-isys.com/kipblaw@smartbro.net By:

SANTIAGO A.R. KAPUNAN IBP No. 841325/03 January 2011/Quezon City PTR No. 6614888/03 January 2011/Pasig City Attorneys Roll No. 38950 MCLE Compliance No. III-0019712, 4 January 2011

MARIGOLD ANA C. BARCELONA IBP No. 841326/03 January 2011/R.S.M. PTR No. 6614887/03 January 2011/Pasig City Attorneys Roll No. 45134 MCLE Compliance No. III-0019709, 4 January 2011

Page 10 of 10

Copy furnished: ATTY. ESTELITO P. MENDOZA 4th Floor Dynavision Building Rada Street, Legaspi Village Makati City SYCIP SALAZAR HERNANDEZ & GATMAITAN 4th Floor SSHG Law Center 105 Paseo de Roxas, Makati City

SOO GUTIERREZ LEOGARDO & LEE 9th Floor Sage House 110 V.A. Rufino Street, Legaspi Village Makati City COURT OF APPEALS Manila NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION PPSTA Building, Banawe Street cor. Quezon Avenue Quezon City

EXPLANATION

The foregoing Motion for Reconsideration shall be served upon the other parties by registered mail because of distance, time constraints and lack of office messengers to personally serve all office pleadings.

MARIGOLD ANA C. BARCELONA