GR 23867; (June, 1971) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-23867 June 10, 1971
MATEO PAGTAKHAN, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, LA PERLA CIGAR & CIGARETTE FACTORY, INC. and LORENZO LIM, respondents.
FACTS
The acting prosecutor of the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) filed an unfair labor practice complaint on behalf of forty-three employees against La Perla Cigar and Cigarette Factory, Inc. and its manager, Lorenzo Lim. After the complainants presented their evidence, respondents filed a motion to dismiss, alleging lack of jurisdiction and laches. The trial judge denied this motion. Subsequently, the judge set the case for continued hearing. Respondents and their counsel failed to appear at the scheduled hearings. Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration of the order denying their motion to dismiss and later filed an unverified motion claiming excusable neglect for their non-appearance, arguing that their motion for reconsideration had elevated the case to the CIR en banc, thereby suspending the trial.
The trial judge proceeded and, based on the complainants’ evidence, issued an order finding respondents guilty of unfair labor practice and ordering reinstatement with back wages. Respondents appealed to the CIR en banc, which affirmed the trial judge’s decision. Respondents then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, contending that the trial judge lost jurisdiction to decide the case upon the filing of their motion for reconsideration, as such motion elevated the case to the CIR en banc for resolution.
ISSUE
Whether the trial judge of the Court of Industrial Relations lost jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing and decide the case upon the filing of respondents’ motion for reconsideration of the order denying their motion to dismiss.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the trial judge did not lose jurisdiction and properly proceeded to decide the case. The Court explained that a motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order does not divest the trial judge of jurisdiction to continue with the trial. An interlocutory order is one that does not dispose of the case completely but leaves something to be done on the merits. The order denying the motion to dismiss was interlocutory, as it did not terminate the proceedings. Consequently, the filing of a motion for reconsideration against such an order does not suspend the trial unless a statute or rule expressly provides otherwise. The Rules of the Court of Industrial Relations contained no provision stating that a motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order would halt the proceedings. Therefore, the trial judge retained authority to continue the hearing and render a decision based on the evidence presented, especially after respondents’ failure to appear constituted a waiver of their right to present evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the CIR en banc’s decision, declaring the trial judge’s order final and executory.