G.R. No. 178083 ; March 13, 2012
In Re: Letters of Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza re: Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) v. Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL), et al.

FACTS

This administrative matter stemmed from letters by Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza questioning procedural irregularities in the handling of G.R. No. 178083 . The case originated from a July 22, 2008 Decision by the Court’s Third Division, which found PAL guilty of illegal dismissal. PAL’s first motion for reconsideration was denied with finality by a Special Third Division on October 2, 2009, which expressly stated no further pleadings would be entertained. Following the retirement of the original ponente, Justice Ynares-Santiago, PAL filed a second motion for reconsideration.
The Raffle Committee, citing A.M. No. 99-8-09-SC, raffled the case to Justice Presbitero Velasco, Jr., a member of a newly-constituted regular Third Division, not to a remaining member of the original or special division. The Committee applied an exception in the rules for cases where a motion had already been denied with finality. Subsequently, the new regular Third Division, through Justice Velasco, accepted and granted PAL’s second motion for reconsideration, reversing the 2008 Decision. This prompted FASAP’s own motion for reconsideration and the administrative letters alleging grave abuse of discretion in the procedural handling of the case.

ISSUE

Whether the Raffle Committee and the subsequent regular Third Division committed grave abuse of discretion in the procedural handling of PAL’s second motion for reconsideration after a resolution had been issued with finality.

RULING

Yes, the Court En Banc found grave abuse of discretion. The procedural rules were misapplied. Under the prevailing Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, specifically Rule 2, Section 7, once a decision or resolution is rendered by a Division, all subsequent pleadings, including second motions for reconsideration filed after a denial with finality, must be acted upon by the ponente on record with the participation of the other members of that same Division. If the ponente has retired, replacement must be by raffle from among the remaining members of that Division who concurred in the original ruling.
The Raffle Committee’s reliance on the exception in the old A.M. No. 99-8-09-SC was erroneous because the 2010 Internal Rules, which were controlling, contained no such exception for cases denied with finality. The raffle of the case to Justice Velasco, who was not a member of the Division that rendered the final October 2, 2009 Resolution, violated this rule. Consequently, the subsequent actions of the new regular Third Division, including the acceptance and grant of the second motion for reconsideration, were void for having been undertaken by a Division improperly constituted to handle the case. The procedural missteps undermined the stability of final judgments and the Court’s own internal procedures.