February 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > February 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. Nos. 169829-30 : February 04, 2009] STEEL CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES V. SCP EMPLOYEES UNION-NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS :
[G.R. Nos. 169829-30 : February 04, 2009]
STEEL CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES V. SCP EMPLOYEES UNION-NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the First Division of this Court dated 04 February 2009
G.R. Nos. 169829-30 (Steel Corporation of the Philippines v. SCP Employees Union-National Federation of Labor Unions).
Petitioner filed a Motion for Clarification of the Decision of this dated April 16, 2008. As stated in the dispositive portion of the Decision, the strike in question is found illegal and the union officers who participated in the illegal strike may not be reinstated. Regarding the ordinary employees who participated in the strike, however, there is need of proof that they committed illegal acts during the strike in order that they may be dismissed. From the records of this case, the Court is not convinced that they did. The Motion for Clarification is, therefore, DENIED.
Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration that raised no new issues or substantial arguments that would warrant reconsideration of the Decision and, thus, the same is DENIED.
SO ORDERED
G.R. Nos. 169829-30 (Steel Corporation of the Philippines v. SCP Employees Union-National Federation of Labor Unions).
Petitioner filed a Motion for Clarification of the Decision of this dated April 16, 2008. As stated in the dispositive portion of the Decision, the strike in question is found illegal and the union officers who participated in the illegal strike may not be reinstated. Regarding the ordinary employees who participated in the strike, however, there is need of proof that they committed illegal acts during the strike in order that they may be dismissed. From the records of this case, the Court is not convinced that they did. The Motion for Clarification is, therefore, DENIED.
Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration that raised no new issues or substantial arguments that would warrant reconsideration of the Decision and, thus, the same is DENIED.
SO ORDERED
Very truly yours,
(Sgd) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division
(Sgd) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division