BY ATTY. BATAS MAURICIO

LIFE’S INSPIRATIONS: “… maintain justice in the courts…” (Amos 5:15, the Holy Bible).

-ooo-

WE MUST WAIT FOR SC EN BANC RULING ON PAL ROW: The better part of prudence now is for all of us to await the decision that the Supreme Court’s 15 justices---the so-called en banc, or full court---will ultimately issue on the case against business tycoon Lucio Tan’s Philippine Air Lines (PAL) by the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP). That decision should clarify things.

My view is that, no matter how great the public furor might be against the en banc’s action to give the case another look despite the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court’s second division favoring FASAP, the full court will proceed to do its duty of issuing its own---en banc---decision. This is actually what the Constitution provides.

-ooo-

COULD MISAPPLICATION OF THE RULES HAPPEN AT SC? Be that as it may, from the bits and pieces of information coming out from the tribunal about the case, particularly the statements of Court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez, there is a need to clarify how a “misapplication of the rules”, as Marquez said, happened in the FASAP case.

Marquez said the FASAP case should have been handled by the court’s special third division as a result of the retirement of its justices but a “misapplication of the rules” happened so that the case found its way to the court’s second division. The question is: could a misapplication of the rules really happen at the highest court of the land?

-ooo-

SC MUST DISCLOSE MENDOZA LETTER: Then, the Supreme Court must also bring out the letter of PAL lawyer Estelito Mendoza and disclose its contents, so the public will know what was in it that prompted the whole tribunal to take on the case despite the earlier decisions of its second division.

It would be to enrich jurisprudence, as it were, if all lawyers could see how a letter---not a formal pleading---could prompt the Supreme Court to act on a case that has been decided by its division. Especially because, this is not the first time that Mendoza had written a letter to the court.

-ooo-

JUSTICES IN THE FASAP-PAL ROW: Just for the record, the case of FASAP was decided by the Supreme Court in favor of FASAP and against Lucio Tan’s PAL, through then Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares Santiago. Santiago’s original decision was dated July 22, 2008. Then, that original decision was affirmed by the court, again through Santiago, in a resolution dated October 2, 2009.

Based on the Supreme Court’s website, Santiago’s original decision was  concurred in by Justices Ma. Alicia Austria Martinez, Minita V. Chico Nazario, Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura and Teresita J. Leonardo De Castro. 

Santiago’s resolution denying PAL’s motion for reconsideration and confirming FASAP’s victory, on the other hand, appears, through a web copy thereof, to have been concurred in by Justices Minita V. Chico Nazario, Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Diosdado M. Peralta and Lucas P. Bersamin.

----

Sulat ni Mendoza sa PAL row, ilabas!

INSPIRASYON SA BUHAY: “…panatiliin ninyo ang katarungan sa mga hukuman…” (Amos 5:15, Bibliya).

-ooo-

HINTAYIN NA LAMANG ANG SC EN BANC RULING SA PAL ROW: Mas makakabuti kung hihintayin na lamang natin ang magiging desisyon ng labinlimang justices ng Korte Suprema---ang en banc---sa kaso laban sa Philippine Air Lines (PAL) na pag-aari ng business tycoon na si Lucio Tan, na isinampa ng Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP). Siguradong lilinawin ng nasabing desisyon ang mga bagay-bagay sa isyung ito.

Sa aking pananaw, kahit gaano pa ang galit ng publiko laban sa ginawa ng Supreme Court en banc na repasuhing muli ang kaso sa kabila ng mga naunang desisyon ng second division ng hukuman na pumapabor sa FASAP, itutuloy pa din ng buong hukuman---sa kanyang labinlimang justices---ang pagpapalabas ng sarili nitong desisyon. Ito kasi ang sinasabi ng Saligang Batas.

-ooo-

MANGYAYARI BA ANG “HINDI TAMANG PAGPAPATUPAD NG ALITUNTUNIN” SA SC? Magkaganunman, mula sa sa mga mumunting impormasyong inilalabas ng Korte sa kaso, lalo na sa mga pahayag ni Court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez, lumilitaw na kailangang liwanagin kung papaanong nagkaroon ng “hindi tamang pagpapatupad ng mga alituntunin”, gaya ng sinasabi ni Marquez, sa FASAP case.

Ayon kay Marquez, dapat hinawakan ng third division ng korte ang kaso ng FASAP matapos magretiro ang ilang mga justices, subalit dahil sa “hindi tamang pagpapatupad ng mga alintuntunin”, napunta ang kaso sa second division ng hukuman. Ang tanong: maaari bang magkaroon ng hindi tamang pagpapatupad ng mga alituntunin sa kataas-taasang hukuman? 

-ooo-

SC, DAPAT ILABAS ANG MENDOZA LETTER: Tapos, kailangang ilabas din ng Korte Suprema ang nilalaman ng sulat ni PAL lawyer Estelito Mendoza, upang maintindihan ng publiko at ng sambayanan kung ano ang nakasaad doon na naging dahilan upang pakialaman ng buong korte ang kaso ng FASAP gayong may mga naunang desisyon na dito ang kanyang second division.

Makakadagdag sa mga batas sa ating bayan kung makikita ng lahat ng mga abogado kung papaanong ang isang sulat---hindi isang pormal na mosyon---ay makaka-engganyo sa Korte Suprema na kumilos sa isang kasong dinesisyunan na ng isa nitong dibisyon. Lalo na at lumilitaw na hindi ito ang unang sulat ni Mendoza sa hukuman.

-ooo-

JUSTICES SA FASAP-PAL ROW: Sa kabatiran ng lahat, ang kaso ng FASAP ay dinesisyunan ng Korte Suprema pabor sa FASAP at laban sa PAL ni Lucio Tan, sa pamamagitan ni dating Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares Santiago. Ang orihinal na desisyon ni Santiago ay may petsang Julio 22, 2008. Ang orihinal na desisyon na ito ay kinumpirma ng hukuman, sa panulat pa rin ni Santiago, noong Oktubre 2, 2009.

Batay sa website ng Supreme Court, ang orihinal na desisyon ni Santiago ay kinatigan nina Justices Ma. Alicia Austria Martinez, Minita V. Chico Nazario, Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura at Teresita J. Leonardo De Castro. 

Ang desisyon naman ni Santiago na nagbalewala ng motion for reconsideration ng PAL at kumumpirma sa panalo ng FASAP, ay kinatigan nina Justices Minita V. Chico Nazario, Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Diosdado M. Peralta at Lucas P. Bersamin.