1,975 OFWs ASK SUPREME COURT TO RENDER DECISION ON THEIR PETITION BEFORE RETIREMENT OF CHIEF JUSTICE PANGANIBAN
By MOMOY CARDENAS
The leaders of the 1,975 overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) and awardees in the decision promulgated on Dec.3, 2002 by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) appealed yesterday to the Supreme Court, First Division, to render final decision in G.R. No. 168923, entitled Bienvenido M. Cadalin, et al., vs. Court of Appeals, et al, even as they reiterated that the defendant Kellog-Brown and Root had expressed willingness to pay immediately after a favorable Supreme Court decision.
In the last motion to admit additional submission on May 8, 2006, the petitioners stressed the conclusive admission of their American employer, the Kellog-Brown and Root thru their lawyers, the Godwin-Gruber law firm based in Dallas, Texas, U.S.A., that the said employer will certainly abide by the final decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines regarding this matter, among other admissions in the various documents attached to said motion submitted to the Supreme Court.
We consider the affirmation by the Supreme Court of our previous NLRC December 3, 2002 victory as an early Christmas gift before the retirement on Dec. 7, 2006 of Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban. whom we acknowledge as a model public servant and a world champion of human and economic rights, honor and dignity of the Filipino people, said the 1,975 OFWs.
In their last letters in Pilipino entitled "Huling Liham and Panawagan" personally delivered to Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban on Nov. 28 and 29, 2006, respectively, more than 100 OFWs expressed their gratitude for the grant of due course resolution last June 07, 2006 issued by the Supreme Court.
The twin letters were signed by petitioners Claudio A. Modesto, Jr., Antonio C. Yabut, Arturo A. Poblete, the wives of Rodolfo C. Mana, Domingo O. Villahermosa, Pedro C. Constantino, Olegario B. Francisco, Numeriano San Mateo, Artemio Basmayor, Romulo Balbieran, Edgardo H. Romales and many others.
The long, tortuous journey for the past 22 years - from 1984 to 2006 - to secure justice and compensation for all the marginalized and poor 1,975 OFWs and similarly situated workers has now reached the final race. The OFWs, billed as the modern-day heroes or Bagong Bayani due to their supreme sacrifices to fight poverty in foreign lands for their families and the country to earn the precious foreign exchange remittances to lift Philippine economy, have found salvation through the twin beacons of Liberty and Prosperity, the last book authored by Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban.
Court records showed that the NLRC has awarded more than US$609 million in back wages, damages, discrimination pay, hazard pay, retirement pay, plus 12 percent interest payments, among other awarded money claims. The 2,123 OFWs were hired and employed by Brown & Root International, Inc. (now Kellog-Brown and Root) in their overseas projects in the Middle East, like Bahrain and United Arab Emirates from 1976 to the 1990s. Many of them worked also in Vietnam during the war between North and South Vietnam in the 1960s before their overseas employment in Bahrain and the U.A.E.
Kellog-Brown and Root is an associated company of the Halliburton Group of Companies based in Houston, Texas, USA, the multinational giant where Vice President Richard “Dick” Cheney was the chief executive officer (CEO) for five years. Public records showed that Cheney received at least US$30 million retirement pay and other stock options when he retired from Halliburton Group.
In their petition filed on August 3, 2006, which was given due course by the Supreme Court, the impleaded petitioners assailed the previous decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals which both reversed and set aside the NLRC Decision of December 03, 2002 granting the US$609 million plus awards to all the 1,975 OFWs and awardees.
The said NLRC decision became final and executory judgment when the private respondents/employers grossly failed to comply with the jurisdictional requirements for the perfection of appeal and the posting of supersedeas bond of the actual awards granted by the NLRC.
The modern-day heroes and petitioners argued in their many pleadings, thru their lawyer Gerardo del Mundo, that the Supreme Court shall be the ultimate protectors of all OFWs in dangerous countries of employment, particularly in war-torn country of Iraq, by the promulgation of precedents on hazard pay, equal pay, discrimination pay, moral and exemplary damages among other safety nets against terrorism and suicide bombings which killed tens of thousands in Iraq.
Kellog-Brown and Root employs, at present, 7,000 OFWs in various military camps in Iraq like Camp Victory, Camp Glory, Camp Dragon and Camp Cooke, the last being the employment site where more than 300 OFWs and 500 Sri Lankans, Indians and other nationalities, went on mass strike last May 2005 due to very poor living and working conditions.
#########################
And so goes my dad’s article due for release tomorrow in the Manila Bulletin. But what this article doesn’t state are the actions of Kellog, Brown and Root’s Filipino lawyers representing them in the Philippines. For the 22 years that the aforementioned case have been lodged in Philippine courts for charges of discrimination and abuse, the actuations of the Romulo-Magbanta law firm in stopping Kellog, Brown and Root from finally releasing the cost for damages indeed need to be cast with a doubtful and suspicious eye.
For why would a law firm, or its representative lawyers for that matter, stop its client from its willingness to settle its criminal and civil obligations? Could it possibly be surmised that these lawyers are still acting within the ambit of the Code of Professional Responsibility that states that lawyers should defend the best interests of their clients? Or do we smell the end for the millions of dollars worth of retainer’s fee these lawyers have been receiving for more than two decades from Kellog, Brown and Root?
Tsk. Tsk. To think that they, themselves, are Filipinos. I just wish that they would come clean with a convincing justification with regard to their questionable acts, as, after all, before I scream in utter disillusion over my legal ethics cases, I still would like to very much believe that these lawyers, in the discharge of their duties, could still be afforded the privilege of the benefit of the doubt.
