Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-17411 June 30, 1966
LUZON STEVEDORING CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs.
THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and LUSTEVECO EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-CCLU, respondents.
-----------------------------
G.R. No. L-18681 June 30, 1966
LUSTEVECO EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-CCLU, ET AL., petitioners,
vs.
LUZON STEVEDORING CO., ET AL., respondents.
-----------------------------
G.R. No. L-18683 June 30, 1966
LUZON STEVEDORING CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs.
THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and LUSTEVECO EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-CCLU, respondents.
RESOLUTION
BENGZON, J.P., J.:
In connection with the decision of this court herein and the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration, Lusteveco Employees Association asked leave, which is hereby granted, to file a second motion for reconsideration. Said motion advances the following arguments, which are hereunder discussed:
1. It is asserted by movant that Lusteveco Employees Association's return-to-work offer did not demand a strike duration pay. Notwithstanding non-mention of strike duration pay. As discussed in the previous resolution, the return-to-work offer invoked the order dated June 21, 1958 of the Court of Industrial Relations which granted strike duration pay. Notwithstanding non-mention of strike duration pay in the offer to return to work, the same being one of the conditions under the stated order, it nevertheless formed part of the offer. For the purpose of mentioning the stated order on the offer was precisely no other than to incorporate by reference the terms and conditions set therein.1äwphï1.ñët
2. Anent the reduction of the 1958 Christmas bonus, the dismissal of 13 LEA members, the dismissal of the 26 bulk oil workers and the alleged misapprehension of facts by the Court of Industrial Relations as in the charge of reduction of working days of Anastacio Legaspi, the foregoing were all raised in the first motion for reconsideration and amply discussed in our resolution. We find no new reason to change our stand on the point.
3. The existence of Exhibits A, A-1 and A-2 was also raised in the first motion for reconsideration and discussed in our resolution. Suffice it to correct the clerical error found in page 4 of the resolution in the statement of grounds and/or allegations, pointed out by movant. Instead of "table of the union secretary," it should read "table of a company secretary." Such error, of course, did not affect the resolution of the issue, for (1) it was merely in the restatement of movant's position and (2) the controversy was not on whose table the alleged documents were found but on whether the alleged documents were lying around on said table or inside a police log book placed on top of the same.
Wherefore, the second motion for reconsideration is hereby denied for lack of merit. So ordered.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
