GR L 17411; (June, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. L-17411, L-18681 and L-18683; June 30, 1966
LUZON STEVEDORING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and LUSTEVECO EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-CCLU, respondents. (G.R. No. L-17411)
LUSTEVECO EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-CCLU, ET AL., petitioners, vs. LUZON STEVEDORING CO., ET AL., respondents. (G.R. No. L-18681)
LUZON STEVEDORING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and LUSTEVECO EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-CCLU, respondents. (G.R. No. L-18683)
FACTS
This is a Resolution on a second motion for reconsideration filed by the Lusteveco Employees Association (LEA). The motion was filed in connection with a prior decision and a resolution denying the first motion for reconsideration. The LEA’s second motion raised several arguments, including: (1) that its return-to-work offer did not demand strike duration pay; (2) issues concerning the reduction of the 1958 Christmas bonus, the dismissal of 13 LEA members, the dismissal of 26 bulk oil workers, and an alleged misapprehension of facts regarding the reduction of working days of Anastacio Legaspi; and (3) the existence of certain exhibits (A, A-1, and A-2).
ISSUE
Whether the second motion for reconsideration filed by the Lusteveco Employees Association should be granted based on its advanced arguments.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the second motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. The Court held that:
1. The return-to-work offer, by invoking the Court of Industrial Relations’ order dated June 21, 1958, which granted strike duration pay, incorporated that condition by reference, notwithstanding its non-mention in the offer itself.
2. The issues regarding the Christmas bonus reduction, the dismissals of employees, and the alleged misapprehension of facts were already raised and amply discussed in the first motion for reconsideration, and no new reason was presented to change the Court’s stand.
3. Regarding Exhibits A, A-1, and A-2, the Court acknowledged a clerical error in its prior resolution (stating “table of the union secretary” instead of “table of a company secretary”) but clarified that this error did not affect the resolution of the issue, as the controversy centered on whether the documents were lying on the table or inside a police log book on top of it, not on whose table it was.