SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-23133   July 29, 1968

VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO, CEFERINA LLAMAS VDA. DE DEL ROSARIO, TERESITA REYES and DIOSDADO LARRAZABAL Petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and THE PHILIPPINE LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION (PLASLU), Respondents.

Vicente S. del Rosario, Francisco. E. F. Remotigue, Hilario G. Davide, Jr. and Eriberto Ignacio for petitioners.
Gabato and Lumuntad for respondents.

DIZON, J.:chanrobles virtual law library

On July 13, 1967 judgment was rendered in the above-entitled case, a copy of which was served upon and received by petitioners on July 28 of the same year. On August 22, they filed a motion for reconsideration in connection with which, by our resolution of August 25 of the same year, they were granted leave to file a supporting memorandum. On September 2, 1967, they filed SUPPLEMENTAL ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION which ended praying "that the decision promulgated on July 13, 1967 in this case be set aside." .chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On September 2, 1967, the respondents filed a written opposition to the motion for reconsideration.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On September 8, 1967, We passed a resolution denying, among others, the reconsideration prayed for in the abovementioned Supplemental Arguments in Support of the Motion for Reconsideration.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On October 13, 1967 entry of judgment was made.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

But on April 23, 1968, petitioners filed another motion for reconsideration claiming that the decision rendered in the case was not in accordance with settled jurisprudence on the matter. This motion We denied on May 3, 1968, for the reason that final judgment had already been entered in the case on October 13, 1967.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On June 27, 1968, petitioners again came with a motion for reconsideration claiming (a) that there is as yet no resolution on the basic motion for reconsideration and that, therefore, the entry of judgment was premature, null and void, and that (b) their motion for reconsideration (presumably the last) was meritorious.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

We find no merit in petitioners' contention that their basic motion for reconsideration has not yet been resolved. As stated heretofore, in their supplemental arguments in support of their basic motion for reconsideration, they prayed precisely that our decision of July 13, 1967 be set aside. This is what We denied inter alia, by our resolution of September 8, 1967, a copy of which was received by petitioners' counsel on October 6, 1967. It is, therefore, clear that the decision of this court had already become final and executory when the entry of judgment was made.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the last motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners on July 27, 1968 can no longer be considered.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.
Zaldivar, J., took no part.