Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
DECISION
CORPORATION,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
Present:
PANGANIBAN, C.J.
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
AUSTRIA-
CHICO-NAZARIO, JJ.
Other pleadings and portions of case records need
not accompany the petition, unless the court will require
them in order to aid it in its review of the case. Omission of
ENRICO E. ZAMORA,
Promulgated:
Respondent.
August 7,
2006
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----x
SO ORDERED.7[7]
pointed out that, when the complaint was filed on May 14,
2.
3.
4.
7
8
11
12
10
13
B.
The
Honorable
Court of Appeals did not rule in
accordance with prevailing laws and
jurisprudence when it denied petitioner
APCs motion for reconsideration in spite
of the fact that petitioner APC submitted
copies of all pleadings and documents
mentioned in its petition for certiorari.
Up for consideration is
petitioners motion for reconsideration
(pages 64-71 of the Rollo) of this Courts
resolution of dismissal (page 54, id.),
which was promulgated on January 11,
2001. Considering private respondents
undisputed comment on said motion
(pages 159-161. id.), the same is hereby
DENIED. The resolution of dismissal
stands.19[19] (Emphasis supplied)
17, 1999 and October 11, 2000 and the Decision of the Labor
Arbiter dated September 16, 1998, and photocopies of the
February 24, 1999 notice of garnishment, March 11, 1999
Order of the Labor Arbiter authorizing Sheriff Fulgencio
Lavarez to implement the writ of execution, and March 23,
1999 Resolution of the NLRC enjoining implementation of the
C.
The
Honorable
Court of Appeals did not rule in
accordance with prevailing laws and
jurisprudence when it denied petitioner
APCs motion for reconsideration on a
new ground namely, the alleged failure
of petitioner APC to dispute respondent
Zamoras comment and/or opposition to
motion for reconsideration (Opposition),
in spite of the fact that (i) the Honorable
Court of Appeals did not order petitioner
APC to reply to the said opposition; and
(ii) the said Opposition is patently
unmeritorious.20[20]
writ of execution.15[15]
16
17
14
18
15
19
20
23
xxxx
xxxx
issues.
thus:
21
23
25
22
24
26
December 17, 1999 and October 11, 2000 would have sufficed
contrary findings.
28
29
32
33
satisfied any question the court may have had regarding the
pleadings of the parties.
petition.30[30]
documents.
28
31
29
32
30
33
27
35
P198,502.30.
There is a policy elevated in this ruling. In Aris (Phil.) Inc. v.
order from the court may issue though to direct the movant
xxxx
issue as follows:
35
37
34
36
38
dHel
HefildacomnphtwLbrA eaihwndotglfsprmuecivdal.APCs,ontehcmpidnorgftwk,becaushdrignt oejavlcmpy,GndAri.
TheLaborAuitnldfmvZ.Ophe,NLRCatwsrmnodilcuvehbastmwoZrilfunveyasdhtmpborngiwfkadyjthecmoprGnAi.Hw,uvMRefdcsatorlbyZmh,NLCiedcsnutorAPampyZhideslnowcatmu9fP08,1D2.5eisplhdwocanAtPCugerisdfhonlu[13t]beNLRCdhisam.InolutfOcber1,h20NLRCsjdiawofunplrehmt:
sFt,noiralpedg fc qurtoiabehdpn.Olyswcraetvdimupohny.Tsefrvaclwtdumnioqslpheratgnio,wdsmceutlakpfriogbvsedctnaihourgvestp3in0.[]
Second,vifaumsrtlpheoni,dtbafswheconralufditmenycohpi.Tus,ftaemlrgnopsudizaqetgmjn,wlfchoyridtuepmjngsach31].[
Isue
Case Digest
1.W/napcshouldteifLg
FACTS
2h.W/neawtrdofupislyc
cEnamoriZwspeylfAPh.CaigtdckwHrepolmhnsiafctdwuerqingopam.Aft,heurdbspointAPCac,edouigmhvsntafleckw.r
InRoquserpPhvilAc.40,1SC2(3u)twasedrhnilvombcaswherRutfCpdlionysrmaetfcuhobvsjeLarCdnthmfHc.,ievornsatfblAvedops,gitahryn mfeolsthdpaywgmefioulrntpdaesvbyhigrcout.Onad,femplhsybrtinugaeodschmtnrivedwaly,fhopsnqutirmebwavylhcdforisentu,maclydsrevingthop.