Dismissed transit employees plead swift action on pending SC petition

Dismissed employees of a transit organization have asked the Supreme Court to grant their motion for an oral argument on their petition against the Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) and state auditors.

In a statement released Tuesday, the Pinag-Isang Lakas ng Mga Manggagawa ng LRT (PIGLAS) pushed for an oral argument “considering the voluminous records of their case whose execution proceeding spans about 20 years already.”

The employees of the now-defunct Metro Transit Organization Inc. (MTOI), which had an operations and management agreement with the LRTA, were terminated after the LRTA no longer renewed the agreement following a strike in July 2000 over a bargaining deadlock.

PIGLAS said that the Labor Arbiter previously ruled that they were illegally dismissed in September 2004, granting them separation pay and full backwages. The group said the ruling was affirmed by the SC Third Division in April 2008 and became final and executory in September 2008.

It then submitted an updated computation of judgment award with legal interest in the amount of P461.5 million.

However, in a decision, the COA found that their claim is without merit.

State auditors said that the claim is rooted in the SC Third Division ruling, which they said merely resolved technical issues such as the propriety of filing a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals without prior motion for reconsideration and non-compliance with the jurisdictional requirements of posting bond.

“It failed to dispose the merits of the case, as to whether or not petitioners were illegally dismissed and whether LRTA and MTOI are liable,” it said.

COA cited a 2009 SC resolution that found that “employees of MTOI are not and cannot be considered employees of LRTA.”

“Thus, the distinctive personalities of MTOI and LRTA became the solid foundation of our conclusion in LRTA v. Venus that the LRTA cannot be held liable for employment-related obligations to MTOI employees,” COA cited.

Meanwhile, COA said that while it “commiserates with the plight of the herein illegally dismissed petitioners,” MTOI is the one that is liable for the claim.

“Sadly, it is now a defunct government agency with no funds to disburse. One cannot squeeze blood out of a dry stone or water out of a parched land,” it said.

For its part, PIGLAS said this was a “grave abuse of authority” on the part of COA.

GMA News Online sought comment from LRTA and COA regarding PIGLAS’ latest request before the high tribunal.

The LRTA declined to comment, saying the matter is already with the court. Meanwhile, the COA has yet to reply as of posting time. — VDV, GMA Integrated News