Another flip-flop up there?

Published by the Visayan Daily Star Publications, Inc.

NINFA R. LEONARDIA Editor-in-Chief & President

CARLA P. GOMEZ Editor GUILLERMO TEJIDA III Desk Editor PATRICK PANGILINAN Busines Editor NIDA A. BUENAFE Sports Editor RENE GENOVE Bureau Chief, Dumaguete MAJA P. DELY Advertising Coordinator

CARLOS ANTONIO L. LEONARDIA Administrative Officer

The Supreme Court did it again.

This time, it opened itself to criticism and even disbelief with its recent decision that recalled or withdrew its former decision ordering the reinstatement of flight attendants of the Philippine Airlines.

The case involved the retrenchment of some 1,400 employee of PAL, members of the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines. The group had filed a case against PAL seeking their reinstatement and citing the airline for illegal dismissal. Their case filed with the National Labor Relations Commission was resolved with a decision from that body ordering their reinstatement. However, the decision was later reversed when PAL appealed the case.

When the case was raised to the Court of Appeals, it sustained the Labor body’s last decision, so the employees went to the Supreme Court that reversed the CA and ordered their reinstatement. Aside from that, it also dismissed the motion for reconsideration filed by PAL. Another motion for reconsideration from PAL was also rejected by the SC, that stressed in its resolution that the decision was with finality, and that it would not entertain anymore similar motions. It seemed to the employees that that was that, their case had been won.

But something else came up to shock them, and the entire country as well. The “final decision” was apparently not final at all, and the High Court must have another interpretation of the term. Yesterday, the entire country was startled at the news that the final decision, from which no further plea was supposed to be entertained, had been reversed again to the disadvantage of the workers.

Immediately, members of the Senate, as well as professionals and ordinary citizens, slammed the High Court for its perceived inconstancy. But is it really a surprise? Recall what happened to the 16 premature cities whose case had been batted back and forth, and after no less than four swappings of decisions, finally got their way, despite their very obvious lack of qualifications as required under the Local Government Code.

No wonder so many harsh words have been thrown at the present composition of the Supreme Court. It does lock as if flip-flopping is one of its policies these days.*