MANILA, Philippines—One of the country’s largest business groups backed, on Wednesday, the decision of the Supreme Court to recall its supposedly final ruling on the termination of 1,400 flight attendants of Philippine Airlines in 1998.
In a statement, Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry Inc. (PCCI) president Francis Chua said the high tribunal “displayed extraordinary courage and grit for owning up to its mistake.”
“It’s not everyday that we see a Supreme Court correcting what it described as a misapplication of its own internal rules,” he added.
The Supreme Court “recalled” earlier this week its decision which had initially handed the victory to the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP), declaring the termination of its members 13 years ago as illegal, and ordering their reinstatement with back pay.
However, Philippine Airlines’ counsel Estelito Mendoza wrote the Supreme Court, pointing to a technicality — that the court’s Second Division had issued a ruling, while the case was actually being tried by the Third Divison — prompting the court to recall its decision.
Chua said the Supreme Court has always been perceived as “infallible” and whose rulings were “cast in stone.”
However, the case of FASAP versus PAL was “a clear example that the tribunal would not hesitate to recall a decision that it believes suffers from technical flaws,” he said.
“It’s easy to criticize our magistrates, especially in a case as controversial as the PAL-FASAP issue,” the PCCI chief added. “But what would we rather have, a High Court that insists it is right even when wrong, or a court that knows how to admit and correct its mistake? I think the latter is the real essence of justice.”
“I believe businesses in this country would be better off and more secure in the thought that our present Supreme Court is ready and willing to stand up for what is right despite criticisms,” he stressed.
As this developed, Chua urged the Supreme Court en banc to swiftly resolve the case, which has dragged on for over a decade.
“In fairness to both parties, this case must have a final resolution so that the former cabin attendants can move on with their lives while the company can also plan for the future,” he said.
From a business standpoint, Chua explained it would be extremely difficult for companies like PAL to make long-term plans as long as there is a pending case whose potential cost to the company could erode, if not wipe out, the firm’s equity.
“It is our fervent wish that a closure of this issue be reached the soonest,” he said. “For PAL employees who would be affected by this Supreme Court decision, I wish that PAL would help them in the best way they can so that these employees can move on.”