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:
1
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.
The doctrine on the immutability of a final judgment is well
established.
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.
The orderly administration of justice requires
that,
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)
2
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
render the 07 September 2011 Resolution is beyond all question.
Under the
Constitution, judicial power shall be vested in ONE Supreme Court and in such
lower courts as may be established by law.7
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 Court’s 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
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]
4
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 Court’s
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
Division’s 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
9
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.
FASAP’s 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 FASAP’s retrenched members.
IV.
THE RECALL OF THE 07 SEPTEMBER 2011 RESOLUTION
IN THE INSTANT ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER IS NOT A
VALID EXERCISE OF THE HONORABLE COURT’S
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 Court’s exercise of its judicial functions cannot be
deemed a proper exercise of its administrative functions. The Supreme Court’s
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 Court’s 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 Court’s 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. Mendoza’s
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
Attorney’s 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
Attorney’s 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