Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2011 > September 2011 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 178083 : September 07, 2011] FLIGHT ATTENDANTS AND STEWARDS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (FASAP), PETITIONER, v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. (PAL), PATRIA CHIONG, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 07 September 2011 which reads as follows:cralaw

G.R. No. 178083 - FLIGHT ATTENDANTS AND STEWARDS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (FASAP), petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. (PAL), PATRIA CHIONG, ET AL., respondents.

We resolve the second motion for reconsideration (2^nd MR) filed by respondent Philippine Airlines (PAL) of the Court's July 22, 2008 Decision.

PAL submits in its 2^nd MR that the October 2, 2009 Resolution of the Court did not rule on the issues it raised in its first motion for reconsideration, in the oral arguments and in the memorandum.^[1] According to PAL, the resolution "left unresolved the issues raised in PAL's x x x Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision dated July 22, 2008."^[2] Since the Court did not rule on all the issues, according to PAL, the present motion must be considered as the FIRST motion for reconsideration of the Resolution of October 2, 2009.

PAL's arguments fail to convince us of their merits.

We remind PAL that the Court is only bound to discuss those issues that are relevant and are necessary to the full disposition of the case;^[3] it is not "incumbent upon the court" to discuss each and every issue in the pleadings and memoranda of the parties.

PAL likewise incorrectly asserts that the resolution "did not rule on the issues raised and argued by the respondents,"^[4]  and that Mme. Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago "modified" the Court's July 22, 2008 Decision.

First, the issues raised by PAL in its 2^nd MR have already been discussed and settled by the Court in the July 22, 2008 Decision. The Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Phils. (FASAP) is correct in its position that the resolution "sustained the challenged decision dated 22 July 2008."^[5] To reiterate, the Court is not required to re-state its factual and legal findings in its Resolution. The Court's supposed silence cannot be construed as a repudiation of the original decision; it only implies that the Court sustained the decision in its entirety.^[6] 

Second, although the subsequent Resolution did not discuss all the issues raised by the petitioner, it does not mean that the Court did not take these issues into consideration.^[7]

Finally, the Resolution did not "modify" the July 22, 2008 Decision of the Court. The Resolution clearly upheld its original ruling and unequivocally stated so when we said: 

Therefore, this Court finds no reason to disturb its finding that the retrenchment of the flight attendants was illegally executed. As held in the Decision sought to be reconsidered, PAL failed to observe the procedure and requirements for a valid retrenchment. Assuming that PAL was indeed suffering financial losses, the requisite proof therefor was not presented before the NLRC which was the proper forum. More importantly, the manner of the retrenchment was not in accordance with the procedure required by law. Hence, the retrenchment of the flight attendants amounted to illegal dismissal.^[8]

Significantly, PAL appeared to have deliberately omitted the above highlighted portions of the Court's Resolution in its 2^nd MR. The omission appears to us to be deliberate as we not only referred to our original finding that PAL failed to observe the proper procedures and requirements of a valid retrenchment; we also reaffirmed these findings. Thus, PAL appears to us to be less than honest in its claim.

To conclude, the rights and privileges that PAL unlawfully withheld from its employees have been in dispute for a decade and a half. Many of these employees have since then moved on, but the arbitrariness and illegality of PAL's actions have yet to be rectified. This case has dragged on for so long and we are now more than duty-bound to finally put an end to the illegality that took place; otherwise, the illegally retrenched, employees can rightfully claim that this Court has denied them justice.cralaw

WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to deny with finality respondent PAL's second motion for reconsideration. No further pleadings shall be entertained. Costs against the respondents. Let entry of judgment be made in due course.

SO ORDERED. 

Very truly yours,

MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
  Division Clerk of Court

By:

  (Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 2248-2249.

^[2] Ibid. 

^[3] In Complaint of Mr. Aurelio Indencia Arrienda against Justice Puno, 499 Phil. 1, 12 (2005), "even [if] certain issues were not discussed, the force and effect of the ponencia remained the same. It was not incumbent upon the Court to discuss each and every issue in the pleadings and memoranda of the parties, [especially those it did not deem necessary for the full disposition of the case." See also People v. Derpo, 250 Phil. 447 (1988); and Batongbakal v. Zafra, 489 Phil. 367, 379 (2005), where the Court held: "Courts are not always required by law to discuss each and every allegation raised by litigants. In the wise use of their discretion, courts may sift the arguments raised by both parties and address only those which are substantial." 

^[4] Rollo, p. 2227. 

^[5] Id. at 2461. 

^[6] See e.g., Borromeo v. Court of Appeals, 264 Phil. 388, 394 (1990), where the Court held: "When a petition is denied or dismissed by this Court, this Court sustains the challenged decision or order together with its findings of facts and legal conclusions." (emphasis ours) 

^[7] Frauendorff v. Judge Castro, etc., et al., 193 Phil. 629 (1981); "Withal, there are considerations which are taken into account but are not stated in the pertinent resolution as decision. It is not incumbent upon the Court to discuss every pro and con in the pleadings and memoranda of the parties." (emphasis ours) 

^[8] Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. 178083, October 2, 2009, 602 SCRA 473, 502. 

* Peralta, J., designated as Acting Member of the Second Division vice Carpio, J., per Raffle dated August 15, 2011. 

** Reyes, J., on official leave: Mendoza, J., designated as Additional Member per Special Order No. 1066 dated August 23, 2011. 

*** Sereno, J., on leave: Bersamin, J., designated as Additional Member per Special Order No. 1074-A dated September 6, 2011.