SC upholds validity of PAL’s retrenchment of cabin crew in 1998

The Supreme Court (SC) has upheld the validity of the Philippine Airlines (PAL)'s retrenchment of 1,400 cabin crew employees in 1998.

In a 55-page decision promulgated on March 13 this year, the SC en banc voted to set aside the SC special third division's ruling ordering PAL to reinstate the laid-off workers in July 2008.

The ruling came almost 20 years after the cabin personnel were retrenched and around six years after the controversy over the labor case was hurled as an article of impeachment against the late former chief justice Renato Corona.

"Upon a critical review of the records, we are convinced that PAL had met all the standards in effecting a valid retrenchment," the en banc said in its resolution.

Only nine justices participated in the resolution and seven voted for the ruling penned by Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin.

Associate Justices Diosdado Peralta, Estela Perlas-Bernabe, Alfredo Caguioa, Samuel Martires, Noel Tijam, and Alexander Gesmundo concurred.

Associate Justices Marvic Leonen and Andres Reyes dissented.

Those who took no part in the decision are Acting Chief Justice Antonio Carpio and Associate Justices Presbitero Velasco Jr., Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, Mariano del Castillo, and Francis Jardeleza.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno is on leave.

The resolution also affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals on August 23, 2006 standing by the ruling of the National Labor Relation's Commission in favor of PAL.

The SC also granted the Philippine flag carrier's two motions for reconsideration on the division's final affirmation of its decision that ordered the reinstatement of the employees.

The en banc denied the Flight Attendants and Stewards' Association of the Philippines' appeal on a March 2012 SC resolution.

The decision elaborated on four arguments: that the airline's "serious financial losses" to justify the massive retrenchment had been "duly established," and  that it "retrenched in good faith."

The Court also ruled that PAL had used "fair and reasonable" criteria in selecting workers to be retrenched in accordance with the 1995-2000 collective bargaining agreement; and that the retrenched employees "signed valid quitclaims."

"The release and quitclaim signed by the affected employees substantially satisfied the aforestated requirements. The consideration was clearly indicated in the document in the English language, including the benefits the employees would be relinquishing in exchange for the amounts to be received," the resolution said.

Citing standards, the tribunal decided they uphold the release and quitclaims supposedly signed by the retrenched employees.

In his dissenting opinion, Leonen said: "This is an extraordinary case. Like in the Book of Revelation, it involves the miraculous resurrection of the dead: in this case, a dead case."

Corona 'meddling' in FASAP vs PAL case

One of the articles of impeachment against Corona in 2012 was his “flip-flopping of the Corona Court on FASAP vs. PAL on a mere letter from Philippine Airlines’ counsel Atty. Estelito Mendoza."

In its original 2008 ruling after the labor case was elevated to the High Court, the tribunal decided the retrenchment was illegal.

It would junk the flag carrier's motion for reconsideration in 2009, thereby upholding its earlier ruling.

The former chief justice reorganized the Court's divisions in 2010, and the FASAP case would be raffled to the SC second division, which would dismiss PAL's second motion for reconsideration.

But in October 2011, after receiving a series of four letters from Mendoza, a former solicitor general, the Court en banc recalled the division's resolution.

The Court had claimed the lawyer's letters only addressed technicalities in the handling of the case, but FASAP president Roberto Anduiza, a prosecution witness in Corona's impeachment trial, said the SC "acted" on Mendoza's letters without seeking comment from the union.

Anduiza had then blamed Corona for the ruling's recall when he found out that the latter had participated in the voting, in contrast to past rulings where he had taken no part. —NB, GMA News