GR L 18270; (May, 1963) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-18270. May 31, 1963. SAN PABLO OIL FACTORY, INC., and WERNER P. SCHETELIG, petitioners, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and KAPATIRANG MANGGAGAWA ASSOCIATION (NLU), respondents.
FACTS
This case involves a procedural resolution following the Supreme Court’s earlier resolution dated April 30, 1963. Notice of that April 30 resolution was served upon the original counsel for the petitioners on May 10, 1963. Subsequently, on May 22, 1963, a new law firm, Attys. Ozaeta, Gibbs & Ozaeta, entered their appearance as counsel for the petitioner corporation. They also appeared for James McKeen, the special administrator of the estate of the individual petitioner, Werner P. Schetelig, whose death was formally placed on record.
Two motions were subsequently filed by this new counsel. The first motion was filed on behalf of the special administrator of Schetelig’s estate. It sought the dismissal of the case insofar as it pertained to the deceased Werner P. Schetelig and his estate. Alternatively, it prayed that the estate be granted a period of at least twenty days from notice to file a motion for reconsideration. The second motion was filed on behalf of the petitioner corporation, San Pablo Oil Factory, Inc., praying for a twenty-day extension from May 25, 1963, to file its own motion for reconsideration or take other appropriate legal action.
ISSUE
The issues are: (1) whether the case should be dismissed as to the deceased individual petitioner and his estate; and (2) whether the petitioners should be granted an extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s April 30, 1963 resolution.
RULING
The Supreme Court, through Justice Dizon, denied the motion to dismiss the case concerning the deceased Werner P. Schetelig for lack of merit. The Court did not elaborate on the specific grounds for this denial in this resolution, but it effectively kept the estate as a party to the proceedings, likely because the liabilities or obligations subject of the industrial dispute may survive the death of a party and thus must be resolved with the estate properly represented.
However, the Court found the motions meritorious insofar as they sought an extension of time. The Court recognized the change in counsel and the need for the new attorneys to familiarize themselves with the case and prepare the appropriate pleadings. Consequently, the Court granted both petitioners—the corporation and the estate through its special administrator—a period of twenty days from notice of this resolution within which to file a motion for reconsideration of the April 30, 1963 resolution or to pursue any other proper legal remedy. The resolution was concurred in by Chief Justice Bengzon and Justices Padilla, Paredes, Regala, and Makalintal.