Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	AM No. 11-10-1-SC 2012-03-13	IN RE: LETTERS OF ATTY. ESTELITO P. MENDOZA RE: G.R. NO. 178083 – FLIGHT ATTENDANTS v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES BRION, J.
The Special Third Division[5] denied the MR with finality on October 2, 2009.[6] The Court further declared that "[n]o further pleadings will be entertained."[7] The other Members of the Special Third Division unanimously concurred with the denial of the motion.
	AM No. 11-10-1-SC 2012-03-13	IN RE: LETTERS OF ATTY. ESTELITO P. MENDOZA RE: G.R. NO. 178083 – FLIGHT ATTENDANTS v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES BRION, J.
The Court received Atty. Mendoza's third letter, again addressed to the Clerk of Court, on September 20, 2011.[21] Atty. Mendoza stated that he received a copy of the September 7, 2011 Resolution issued by the Second Division, notwithstanding that all prior Court Resolutions he received regarding the case had been issued by the Third Division.[22] He reiterated his request in his two earlier letters to the Court, asking for the date and time when the Resolution was deliberated upon and a vote taken thereon, as well as the names of the Members of the Court who had participated in the deliberation and voted on the September 7, 2011 Resolution.
	AM No. 11-10-1-SC 2012-03-13	IN RE: LETTERS OF ATTY. ESTELITO P. MENDOZA RE: G.R. NO. 178083 – FLIGHT ATTENDANTS v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES BRION, J.
The Court received Atty. Mendoza's third letter, again addressed to the Clerk of Court, on September 20, 2011.[21] Atty. Mendoza stated that he received a copy of the September 7, 2011 Resolution issued by the Second Division, notwithstanding that all prior Court Resolutions he received regarding the case had been issued by the Third Division.[22] He reiterated his request in his two earlier letters to the Court, asking for the date and time when the Resolution was deliberated upon and a vote taken thereon, as well as the names of the Members of the Court who had participated in the deliberation and voted on the September 7, 2011 Resolution.
	AM No. 11-10-1-SC 2012-03-13	IN RE: LETTERS OF ATTY. ESTELITO P. MENDOZA RE: G.R. NO. 178083 – FLIGHT ATTENDANTS v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES BRION, J.
On September 26, 2011, the Clerk of Court issued the Vidal-Anama[23] Memorandum to the Members of the Second Division in relation to the inquiries contained in the first and second letters of Atty. Mendoza dated September 13 and 20, 2011. Justice Brion also furnished the Members of the ruling Division a copy of the Vidal-Anama Memorandum.
	AM No. 11-10-1-SC 2012-03-13	IN RE: LETTERS OF ATTY. ESTELITO P. MENDOZA RE: G.R. NO. 178083 – FLIGHT ATTENDANTS v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES BRION, J.
With Justice Velasco's subsequent inhibition, a legal reason that the involved officials and Justices should have again recognized is the rationale of the rule on replacements when an inhibition or retirement intervenes. Since the inhibiting Justice was only the Member-in-Charge and was technically merely a nominal ponente[26] in so far as the case is concerned (because he was not the writer of the Decision and Resolution under consideration), the raffle should have been confined among the Members who actually participated in ruling on the merits of the original Decision or of the subsequent Resolution. At that point, only Justices Peralta and Bersamin were left because all the other Members of the original ruling groups had retired. Since under the IRSC[27] and Section 4(3), Article VIII of the Constitution, the case should have been decided by the Members who actually took part in the deliberations, the ruling on the merits made by the ruling Division on September 7, 2011 was effectively void and should appropriately be recalled.
	AM No. 11-10-1-SC 2012-03-13	IN RE: LETTERS OF ATTY. ESTELITO P. MENDOZA RE: G.R. NO. 178083 – FLIGHT ATTENDANTS v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES BRION, J.
On deeper consideration, the majority now firmly holds the view that Section 7, Rule 2 of the IRSC should have prevailed in considering the raffle and assignment of cases after the 2nd MR was accepted, as advocated by some Members within the ruling Division, as against the general rule on inhibition under Section 3, Rule 8. The underlying constitutional reason, of course, is the requirement of Section 4(3), Article VIII of the Constitution already referred to above.[28]
	AM No. 11-10-1-SC 2012-03-13	IN RE: LETTERS OF ATTY. ESTELITO P. MENDOZA RE: G.R. NO. 178083 – FLIGHT ATTENDANTS v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES BRION, J.
The general rule on statutory interpretation is that apparently conflicting provisions should be reconciled and harmonized,[29] as a statute must be so construed as to harmonize and give effect to all its provisions whenever possible.[30] Only after the failure at this attempt at reconciliation should one provision be considered the applicable provision as against the other.[31]