Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > March 2008 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 139940 : March 05, 2008] ARELLANO UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS UNION, ET AL. V. COURT OF APPEALS AND ARELLANO UNIVERSITY, INC. :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 05 March 2008:

G.R. No. 139940 - ARELLANO UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS UNION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS AND ARELLANO UNIVERSITY, INC.

The Court, by Decision^[1] of September 19, 2006, disposed as follows:

WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals Resolution of April 13, 1999 and Resolution of September 3, 1999 are SET ASIDE.

The NLRC Decision of October 12, 1998 and Resolution of January 20, 1999 are AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that the dismissal of petitioner-union members MONICO CALMA, CONSTANCIO BAYHONAN, BERNARDO SABLE, NESTOR BRINOSA, NANJI MACARAMPAT, EDUARDO FLORAGUE and DIONY S. LUMANTA is SET ASIDE, and they are thus ordered REINSTATED WITHOUT BACKWAGES. If their reinstatement is no longer possible, however, they should be given SEPARATION PAY at the rate of One (1) Month pay for every year of service.^[2] (Emphasis in the original)

Both parties moved to reconsider the Decision. Petitioners' Partial Motion for Reconsideration is dated November 15, 2006^[3] while that of respondent is dated November 13, 2006.^[4]

Acting on respondent's November 13, 2006 Motion for Partial Reconsideration, the Court, by Resolution of January 15, 2007,^[5] required petitioners to file their Comment thereon within ten days from notice.

Petitioners' Comment^[6] was filed on March 5, 2007 which this Court noted by Resolution of April 18, 2007.^[7]

In respondent's case, it twice filed a motion for extension of time to file comment on Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration dated November 15, 006 which this Court granted. espondent filed its Comment/Opposition^[8] to petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration on May 15,2007.^[9]

On June 18,2007, the Court issued a Minute Resolution^[10] reading:

1. GRANT . . . respondent's first and second motions for extension totaling fifteen (15) days from 27 April 2007 within which to file comment on petitioners' motion for reconsideration dated 13 [sic] November 2006 of the decision dated 19 September 2006;
   
   
2. NOTE aforesaid comment/opposition dated 14 May 2007; and
   
   
3. DENY [petitioners'] motion for reconsideration with FINALITY, the basic issues raised therein having been duly considered and passed upon by the Court in the aforesaid decision and no substantial argument having been adduced to warrant the reconsideration sought. xxx^[11] (Emphasis in the original, underscoring supplied)
   

On September 11, 2007, respondent filed a Motion for Early Resolution^[12] informing the Court that its Motion for Partial Reconsideration dated November 13, 2006 had not yet been resolved. On the other hand, petitioners, by themselves, filed on October 8, 2007 a Clarificatory Motion and with Motion to Resolve Pending Incidents^[13] also claiming that this Court has yet to act on their motion for reconsideration dated November 15, 2006.

Further, in their Clarificatory Motion, petitioners demanded an explanation from Atty. Voltaire C. de la Cruz, regarding the Comment on respondent's Motion for Reconsideration which he filed on March 5, 2007 purportedly on their behalf, thus,

"PETITIONERS, by counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully file this comment in lieu of the Partial Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondent on 15 November 2006. A copy of said comment was received by the undersigned counsel thru his office messenger on 21 February 2007. It is submitted that:"^[14](Emphasis supplied by the petitioners)

What was denied by the Court in the June 18, 2007 Minute Resolution was petitioners' motion for reconsideration. The statement in the said Resolution that petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was dated November 13, 2006 was a clerical error, the date of said motion being November 15, 2006.

As for petitioners' demand for explanation about what counsel de la Cruz indicated in the Comment he filed purportedly on their behalf on March 5, 2007, the same should be addressed to said counsel, not to the Court.

Acting now on respondent's November 13, 2006 Motion for Partial Reconsideration, this Court resolves to DENY the same with FINALITY, considering that the basic issues raised therein have already been duly considered and passed upon by this Court in its September 19, 2006 Decision, and no substantial argument was adduced to warrant the reconsideration sought.

WHEREFORE, this Court's Minute Resolution of June 18, 2007 Resolution is amended by changing the date of petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration from November 13, 2006 to November 15, 2006.

Respondent's November 13, 2006 Motion for Partial Reconsideration is DENIED with FINALITY. This Court shall no longer entertain any further pleadings. Let entry of judgment be made in due course.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 368-379; 502 SCRA 219 (2006).

^[2] Id. at 378.

^[3] Id. at 414-427.

^[4] Id. at 380-403.

^[5] Id. at 413.

^[6] Id. at 440-450.

^[7] Id. at 451.

^[8] Id. at 462-470.

^[9] Dated May 14, 2007.

^[10] Rollo, pp. 471-472.

^[11] Id. at 471.

^[12] Id. at 473-477.

^[13] Id. at 479-489.

^[14] Id. at 483.