430TH PERSUASIVE APPEAL_2APRIL18_TO THE SCP JUSTICES :"PAL'S WIN OVER FASAP IS FOR LUCIO TAN'S SAKE NOT FOR THE HIGHER INTEREST OF JUSTICE"

1 2. MY QUEST FOR SWINDLED  RETIREMENT PAY BY SHELL 574counts SEE BELOW FOR THE 574TH  TIME THE REITERATION OF DEMAND PAYMENT OF RETIREMENT PAY WHICH SHELL REFUSED TO HONOR IN THE PRESENCE AND DEEMED APPROVAL OF THE HONORABLE MAGISTRATES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES GEUS_15MAR16_66th FOLLOW UP_REITERATION OF DEMAND  PAYMENT OF RETIREMENT PAY Dishonest scales are an abomination to the Lord, but a just weight is His delight... Proverbs Chapter 11  v. 1 Retirement Pay Law circumvented by Shell subject to penal provision provided for by Article 288 of the Labor Code of the Philippines.

TEASERS MARCH 2018

FASAP VS. PAL RETRENCHMENT CASE NEW AND OLD TIMELINES

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 Purple S. Romero 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.

SC votes after 20 years: PAL wins in retrenchment case vs FASAP_REFERENCE

SC votes after 20 years: PAL wins in retrenchment case vs FASAP

The Supreme Court en banc affirms a 2006 Court of Appeals decision that says Philippine Airlines doesn't have to consult FASAP for its criteria for its retrenchment program

ATTRIBUTION REFERENCE SOURCE

PAL retrenchment win erodes SC's credibility – Leonen_REFERERENCE

PAL retrenchment win erodes SC's credibility – Leonen 'The actions of the majority of this Court en banc...creates an ominous cloud that will besmirch our legitimacy,' says Associate Justice Marvic Leonen SOURCE OF REFERENCE  MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court (SC) voted with a majority of 7 that the retrenchment of 5,000 workers of Philippine Airlines (PAL) in 1998 was valid. One of the two dissenters was Associate Justice Marvic Leonen who said that the non-unanimous vote “erodes the reliability and credibility of this Court.” This latest decision by the SC is a flip-flop from two previous decisions of its divisions in 2008 and 2009. Leonen disagreed with the procedural and substantive decisions of the 7 majority, with Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin acting as ponente. History of the case Members of the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) were among the 5,000 workers entrenched by PAL in 1998 in a supposed move to save the business from shutting down due to debt. FASAP’s labor lawsuit against PAL went the long and arduous route: first the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), the Court of Appeals (CA), then the Supreme Court. The case reached the SC in 2008 after the CA sided with PAL and declared the retrenchment valid. The FASAP scored back-to-back victories in the SC courtesy of the special third division, which invalidated the retrenchment in a decision on July 22, 2008 and then again on October 2, 2009, when it denied PAL’s first motion for reconsideration. PAL was then granted leave by the Court to again file motions for reconsideration; and it filed two, pertaining to the 2008 and 2009 decisions. On September 7, 2011, the SC 2nd Division denied PAL’s 2nd motion for reconsideration pertaining to the July 22, 2008 decision. High-profile lawyer Estelito Mendoza began sending letters to the SC on behalf of PAL and on October 4, 2011, the SC en banc recalled the September 7, 2011 resolution. (READ:TIMELINE: FASAP-PAL case) Procedural prohibition? For Leonen, the en banc should have never taken on the case after the special 3rd division affirmed the FASAP win on October 2, 2009. “The judgment in this case attained finality on November 4, 2009 or 15 days from PAL’s receipt of the October 2, 2009 resolution denying the motion for reconsideration of the July 22, 2008 decision,” Leonen said in his dissenting opinion. Leonen noted that Mendoza’s letters were not docketed as part of the main case, but were instead docketed as a separate administrative matter. “It could not be another means to resurrect a case. To do so is highly irregular, suspect, and violative of due process of law. To mask this as being in the interest of justice is to mask its intention to rob labor of a case decided 3 times in its favor,” Leonen said. Leonen said that what PAL did was, in effect, a 3rd motion for reconsideration which he called as “disrespect to us and our rules of procedure.” Citing legal analogies, Leonen said that if the court must grant a 3rd motion for reconsideration, it must do so via a unanimous vote. Leonen said that a unanimous vote on a 3rd motion would be hard to overturn, and thus would prevent further flip-flops, and would “shield this Court from parties who perceive themselves above the justice system.” “The actions of the majority of this Court en banc..creates an ominous cloud that will besmirch our legitimacy. The majority has created an exception to our canonical rules on immutability of judgments. It is certainly not justice that this Court has done,” Leonen said. Bersamin’s ponencia Leonen and fellow dissenter Associate Justice Andres Reyes Jr lost to the ponencia of Bersamin which ruled that Mendoza’s legal recourse was procedurally allowed. Bersamin said that the en banc took on the case because retired justice Arturo Brion, formerly of the ruling division, referred it to them. Bersamin said Leonen has a “narrow view” of the powers of the en banc. This issue was cited by the impeachment prosecution against the late former Chief Justice Renato Corona in 2012. Corona was accused of accommodating Mendoza in allowing the revival of the case. Then Senate president Juan Ponce Enrile did not allow the witness from PAL to take the witness stand in the impeachment court, saying that it was not alleged in the articles of impeachment. Enrile and Mendoza, of course, have a relationship. Mendoza would come to represent Enrile in his pork barrel scam cases. In August 2015, Bersamin’s ponencia won and freed Enrile on bail for the charge of plunder. Mendoza was Enrile’s lawyer. In July 2016, Bersamin’s ponencia won and acquitted former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo of plunder. Mendoza was Arroyo’s lawyer. Bersamin was also the ponente in the decision that allowed the midnight appointment of Arroyo, with Mendoza among the petitioners. (READ: The ties between Lucas Bersamin and Estelito Mendoza) Retrenchment valid Bersamin reinstated the 2006 decision of the CA which ruled that the retrenchment was valid. Bersamin’s decision is based on the following grounds: PAL can retrench to avert more losses The Court can take judicial notice of PAL’s financial losses without requiring the presentation of its audited financial statements PAL retrenched in good faith because it met with labor groups to discuss with them the plan PAL used reusable criteria in selecting which employees to retrench The retrenched employees signed valid quit claims Interesting to note is the voting in this case. In the past high-profile cases, you would see the constitutionalists always grouped together: Acting Chief Justice Antonio Carpio, Leonen and Associate Justice Benjamin Caguioa. Sometimes, Associate Justices Estela Perlas-Bernabe and Francis Jardeleza would join them. This time, Carpio and Jardeleza inhibited. Caguioa and Bernabe joined the majority. Their "groupmate" Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno is on indefinite leave and did not vote. In his separate concurring opinion, Caguioa said that there was substantive evidence that would show “that PAL had indeed been besieged by and suffered severe financial losses, which justify its resort to drastic cuts in personnel.”