Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MR SC Sample PDF
MR SC Sample PDF
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
1
FASAP received a copy of the Resolution on 11 October 2011
Page 2 of 10
GROUNDS
I.
2
In the Matter of the Heirship (Intestate Estates) of the Late Hermogenes Rodriguez, Antonio Rodriguez, Macario J.
Rodriguez, Delfin Rodriguez and Consuelo Rodriguez and Settlement of the their Estates - Rene B. Pascual,
Petitioner vs. Jaime Robles, Respondent, G.R. No. 182645, 22 June 2011 citing Mocorro, Jr. v. Ramirez, G.R. No.
178366, 28 July 2008 [560 SCRA 362]
Page 3 of 10
3
G.R. No. 168382, 06 June 2011
4
Footnote omitted
5
Supra note 2
6
Entitled “Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc, Patria Chiong et
al.”
7
Article VIII, Section 1, first paragraph, Constitution
8
G.R. No. 124293, 31 January 2005 [450 SCRA 169, 185]
Page 4 of 10
II.
9. With all due respect, it is the position of movant FASAP that it is the
recall order of 04 October 2011 instead which is void for having been issued in
violation of the Constitution.
11. In the instant case, the Honorable Court en banc recalled the Second
Division’s 07 September 2011 Resolution in G.R. No. 178083 without providing
any reason for such recall. The en banc Resolution dated 04 October 2011 merely
9
Footnotes omitted
Page 5 of 10
reads: “the Court En Banc further resolves to recall the resolution dated September
7, 2011 issued by the Second Division in this case.”
13. FASAP’s right to be informed of the legal basis for the recall of the 07
September 2011 Resolution of the Honorable Court is a paramount component of
due process and fair play. This is especially true as the concomitant right of some
1,400 FASAP members and that of their families to execute an already final and
executory decision is adversely affected by said recall. In light of the foregoing,
the 04 October 2011 Resolution of the Honorable Court should be reconsidered
and set aside for being violative of due process of law.
III.
14. It is also the submission of FASAP that it was deprived of the right to
be heard on the matter of the recall order and was thus again denied its
constitutionally guaranteed right to due process of law.
15. The records show that herein movant FASAP, which is a party to the
case, was never furnished by the counsel for PAL with copies of his letters subject
matter of the instant Administrative Matter.
Page 6 of 10
16. Equally important, the Honorable Court acted upon the said letters by
peremptorily recalling the 07 September 2011 Resolution of the Second Division
without giving FASAP the opportunity to comment on or oppose the said letters.
17. Notice and hearing, the rudimentary elements of due process, are thus
clearly absent under the circumstances. Again, this notwithstanding that the recall
order adversely affects the substantive rights of FASAP’s retrenched members.
IV.
18. There is nothing in the Constitution, or in any law or rule for that
matter, which grants the Honorable Court the authority to “recall” a final and
executory judgment, such as the 07 September 2011 Resolution.
19. Article VIII, section 5 (2) defines scope of the appellate jurisdiction of
the Court as follows:
20. To “recall” a valid final and executory decision does not fall among
the above enumerated powers of the Supreme Court under the Constitution.
21. This is especially true when the Honorable Court exercises purely
administrative functions – as in the instant Administrative Matter docketed as A.M.
No. 11-10-1, where the Honorable Court entertained the letters of Atty. Estelito P.
Mendoza regarding the 07 September 2011 Resolution in G.R. No. 178083.
22. Certainly, the “recall” of a valid final and executory decision in a case
rendered in the Honorable Court’s exercise of its judicial functions cannot be
deemed a proper exercise of its administrative functions. The Supreme Court’s
Internal Rules enumerates its administrative functions as follows:
23. This is not to say that the Supreme Court, in the performance of its
administrative authority, cannot take cognizance of or entertain the letters of Atty.
Mendoza. Under the circumstances, the High Tribunal may validly determine in
these instant proceedings if indeed there was a lapse, order the investigation
Page 8 of 10
thereof and even discipline those responsible therefor. Such are clearly within the
scope of the “Supreme Court’s administrative functions.
24. However, the Supreme Court may have well exceeded its
administrative authority in this case when it proceeded to recall an immutable final
judgment rendered in the proper proceedings without any showing that the same is
void, and notwithstanding that the substantive rights of so many have already
vested.
25. Besides, the 07 September 2011 Resolution was already a denial with
finality of Philippine Airlines Inc.’s Second Motion for Reconsideration in G.R.
No. 178083. It bears emphasis that a third motion for reconsideration cannot
anymore be entertained in the case.
27. With all due respect, the authority to recall a final and executory
judgment is simply not among the judicial and administrative powers vested in the
Honorable Court. Not having any constitutional or legal basis, the recall of the 07
September 2011 Resolution must perforce be stricken down.
10
Section 3, Rule 15, The Internal Rules of the Supreme Court [A.M. NO. 10-4-20 SC]
Page 9 of 10
RELIEF
Other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises, are likewise prayed for.
By:
Copy furnished:
COURT OF APPEALS
Manila
EXPLANATION
The foregoing Motion for Reconsideration shall be served upon the other
parties by registered mail because of distance, time constraints and lack of office
messengers to personally serve all office pleadings.