ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 131596. February 24, 1999]

NAESS SHIPPING HOLLAND B.V., NAESS SHIPPING PHILIPPINES, INC., BLYSIAD SHIPPING (USA), INC. et al. vs. NLRC, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 24, 1999.

G.R. No. 131596: (Naess Shipping Holland B.V., Naess Shipping Philippines, Inc., Blysiad Shipping (USA), Inc. and Seal International Maritime Corp. vs. NLRC, Associated Marine Officers and Seamen's Union of the Philippines, PTGWOP-ITF and David Torres.)

On December 16, 1997, petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with prayer for writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order seeking to annul and set aside the NLRC Resolutions dated July 15, 1997 and October 24, 1997 in NLRC CA No. 0136797

On January 21, 1998, this Court issued a Resolution dismissing the petition for petitioners' failure to comply with the requirement of the affidavit service of a copy thereof on the Solicitor General and further, for their failure to show that the public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed NLRC resolutions.

On February 23, 1998, petitioners filed a Motion for the reconsideration of this Court's resolution dismissing the petition. Private respondents, on the other hand, filed their Opposition to petitioners' motion.

Pending resolution of petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration, private respondents filed on August 20, 1998 an Urgent Manifestation alleging that "the above-entitled case had been amicably settled on April 15, 1998". They pray that the petition be dismissed for being moot and academic.

On January 13, 1998, petitioners filed a Motion to Admit their Comment to private respondents' Urgent Manifestation alleging that the Resolution of September 9, 1998 "did not timely reach the attention of the (undersigned) handling counsel". In their Comment, they alleged that they "concur in Respondents' Urgent Manifestation dated August 14, 1998 that the above-entitled case had been amicably settled on April 15, 1998 by virtue of a compromise agreement executed between the parties on the same date." Petitioners pray that the petition be dismissed for being moot and academic.

WHEREFORE, considering that this case had been settled amicably by virtue of a compromise agreement executed by and between petitioners and private respondents, petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration has become moot and academic. Accordingly, this case is now deemed terminated.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court.

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE