NEW TIMELINE
FROM JUNE 15, 1998 TO MARCH 26, 2018
TIMELINE: PAL-FASAP retrenchment case, and what happened in 20 years
REFERENCE FROM RAPPLER
The Supreme Court en banc's March 2018 decision on a retrenchment case favors Philippine Airlines and sets aside two earlier rulings favoring flight attendantsMANILA, Philippines – The 20-year-old retrenchment row between the Philippine Airlines (PAL) and the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP)ended as the Supreme Court en banc voted in favor of the flag carrier.
Voting 7-2, SC affirmed the 2006 decision of the Court of Appeals, which ruled that the dismissal of 5,000 workers implemented by the the Lucio Tan-owned airline was legal.
The high court, in its decision, said that the retrenchment was done by PAL in good faith since the company adhered to their Collective Bargaining Agreement. (READ: SC votes after 20 years: PAL wins in retrenchment case vs FASAP)
The retrenchment happened in 1998 and the case reached the SC in 2008.
JUNE 15, 1998
Philippine Airlines lays off a total of 5,000 employees, including 1,400 cabin crew personnel, as part of its cost-cutting measure after the company allegedly incurred P90 billion in liabilities during the 1997 Asian financial crisis.
JUNE 22, 1998
The Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) files with the National Labor Relations Commissions (NLRC) a complaint of illegal retrenchment against PAL and Patria Chiong, assistant vice president for cabin services.
JULY 21, 2000
Labor arbiter Jovencio Mayor rules in favor of FASAP, ordering PAL to reinstate the employees.
MAY 31, 2004
After PAL has filed an appeal, NLRC reverses its previous decision. FASAP brings the case to the Court of Appeals.
AUGUST 23, 2006
Court of Appeals (CA) affirms the NLRC's 2004 decision, which said PAL didn't have to consult FASAP for its criteria for its retrenchment program.
MAY 29, 2007
CA denies FASAP's motion for reconsideration. The case goes to the Supreme Court.
JULY 22, 2008
The Supreme Court special 3rd division rules in favor of FASAP and orders PAL to reinstate 5,000 employees retrenched in 1998.
AUGUST 20, 2008
PAL files motion for reconsideration.
OCTOBER 2, 2009
The SC’s 3rd division affirms the 2008 decision, which declared illegal the retrenchment of the FASAP members.
The high court denies the motion for reconsideration filed by PAL for lack of merit. It also does not accept PAL’s justification for the retrenchment that it was suffering from financial distress after a pilots’ strike in 1998.
“We find this argument untenable. The strike was a temporary occurrence that did not necessitate the immediate and sweeping retrenchment of 1,400 cabin or flight attendants,” the SC says in its decision.
NOVEMBER 3, 2009
PAL files motion for reconsideration for the October 2009 decision and second motion for reconsideration for the 2008 decision. The FASAP case is raffled off to SC second division because members of the special 3rd division have retired.
SEPTEMBER 7, 2011
The SC second division dismisses PAL’s second motion for reconsideration.
SEPTEMBER 2011
PAL lawyer Estelito Mendoza sends a series of letters to the Supreme Court's Clerk of Court regarding the case. He sent a total of 4 letters.
In one letter, Mendoza points out a “misapplication of the rules.” He cites Section 4(3), Article VIII, of the Constitution, which states that cases “heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon, and in no case without the concurrence of at least three of such members.”
OCTOBER 4, 2011
The Supreme Court en banc recalls the second division’s decision which junked PAL’s motion.
The decision comes after the court took cognizance of a letter submitted by Mendoza, PAL’s legal counsel.
Then spokesperson (and now court administrator) Jose Midas Marquez says the SC committed an "honest mistake” because the case should have been handled by the high court’s special 3rd division, not the second division.
OCTOBER 17, 2011
In a motion for reconsideration, FASAP asks the Supreme Court to set aside its October 4, 2011, resolution.
MARCH 26, 2018
The SC en banc affirms the 2006 decision by the Court of Appeals that validated the retrenchment implemented by PAL, setting aside two existing decisions which were in favor of FASAP.
Seven justices voted in favor of PAL, 2 dissented, 5 took no part, while Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno is on indefinite leave.
OLD TIMELINE
FROM JUNE 15, 1998 TO OCTOBER 17, 2011
Timeline: FASAP-PAL case
Key events relating to the case between the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines and the Philippine Airlines
REFERENCE FROM RAPPLER
Published 8:52 PM, February 07, 2012
Updated 4:40 PM, February 08, 2012
MANILA, Philippines - In the Articles of Impeachment lodged against him before the Senate, Chief Justice Renato Corona is charged with culpable violation of the constitution and betrayal of public trust for failing to meet and observe the stringent standards under Art. VIII, Section 7 (3) of the Constitution, which provides that "a member of the judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence."
Specific issues Corona is charged with include his role in supposedly allowing theSupreme Court "to act on mere letters filed by a counsel which caused the issuance of a flip-flopping decision in final and executory cases."
These cases include the row between the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) and the Philippine Airlines (PAL).
Below are key events relating to this case:
June 15, 1998 - Philippine Airlines (PAL) retrenches 5,000 employees, including 1,400 cabin crew personnel as a cost-cutting measure. PAL said it incurred P90-B in liabilities during the 1997 Asian financial crisis. The retrenchment takes effect on July 15.
June 22, 1998 - The Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) files a complaint against PAL and Patria Chiong, the Assistant Vice President for Cabin Services of PAL, for illegal retrenchment at the National Labor Relations Commission.
July 23, 1998 - The labor arbiter rules in favor of FASAP and issues a preliminary injunction stopping PAL from implementing retrenchment program. He also orders the parties to issue a position paper.
Sept. 4, 1998 - PAL chairman Lucio Tan dangles shares of stock to employees and 3 seats in its board of directors, but, in exchange, the collective bargaining agreement would be suspended for 10 years. The employees dismiss the offer.
Sept. 23, 1998 - PAL stops operations and terminates employees.
November 1998 - March 1999 - PAL starts to recall the cabin crew personnel it retrenched. PAL says it recalled 820 personnel already. FASAP says it only recalled 80.
Sept. 28, 1999- FASAP files position paper with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
Nov. 8, 1999- PAL files position paper
July 21, 2000 - Labor arbiter Jovencio Mayor rules in favor of FASAP and orders PAL to reinstate retrenched employees. PAL appeals the decision.
May 31, 2004 - NLRC reverses decision due to lack of merit. FASAP elevates case to the Court of Appeals.
Aug, 23, 2006 - The Court of Appeals affirms NLRC's decision, saying PAL doesn't have to consult FASAP for its criteria on retrenchment program. FASAP files motion for reconsideration.
May 29, 2007 - CA stands by its earlier ruling. FASAP goes to the Supreme Court.
July 22, 2008 - The SC special third division, in a decision penned by Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, rules in favor of FASAP and orders PAL to reinstate retrenched employees. Justices who concurred with this decision are Justices Alicia Austria-Martinez, Minita Chico-Nazario, Antonio Eduardo Nachura and Ruben Reyes.
Aug. 20, 2008 - PAL files motion for reconsideration.
Oct. 2, 2009 - SC special third division affirms 2008 decision with finality. Decision is penned by Ynares-Santiago. Concurring are Justices Nachura, Diosdado Peralta, Nazario and Lucas Bersamin.
Nov. 3. 2009 - PAL files motion for leave to file, and to admit motion for reconsideration for 2009 decision and second motion for reconsideration for 2008 decision.
Jan. 20, 2010 - The SC third division, then chaired by Associate Justice Renato Corona,grants PAL's motion. Corona inhibits from the case.
June 3, 2010 - Chief Justice Renato Corona (he was named Chief Justice in May 2010) orders a revamp of SC divisions. Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales is new chair of third division, with members including Associate Justices Arturo Brion, Bersamin and Villarama.
The FASAP case is raffled off to SC second division because members of the Special third division have retired.
Sept. 7, 2011 - The SC second division dismisses PAL's second motion for reconsideration
Sept. 13, 2011 - PAL lawyer Estelito Mendoza writes the Clerk of Court and asks for an update on the Court's action regarding the case and asks who is the ponente assigned to it.
Sept. 16, 2011 - Mendoza writes a second letter, reiterating request for update.
Sept. 20, 2011 - Mendoza writes another letter, saying they received copy of the Sept. 7 resolution on Sept. 19. He asks for voting pn the details on the resolution. The Sept. 7 resolution dismissses PAL's second motion for reconsideration.
Sept. 22, 2011 - Mendoza writes a fourth letter, asking the Clerk of Court to direct queries to Justices Carpio, Arturo Brion, Jose Perez, Diosdado Peralta, Jose Mendoza, Bersamin, if necessary.
Oct. 4, 2011 - The SC en banc orders the recall of Sept. 7 resolution.
Oct. 16, 2011 - In an interview with Move.ph on this day, Mendoza said the SC erred because their motion for reconsideration was decided by the second division, when what the SC should have done was to form a special third division in light of the retirement of certain members of the the third division, which originally handled the FASAP case.
Oct. 17, 2011 - FASAP files a motion for reconsideration asking the Court to set aside its Oct. 4, 2011 resolution.
| 
