EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-18270. May 31, 1963.]
SAN PABLO OIL FACTORY, INC. and WERNER P. SCHETELIG, Petitioners, v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and KAPATIRANG MANGGAGAWA ASSOCIATION (NLU), Respondents.
Chuidian Law Office and Romeo A. Real, for Petitioners.
Eulogio R. Lerum for respondent Kapatirang Manggagawa Association (NLU).
Mariano B. Tuason for respondent Court Industrial Relations.
SYLLABUS
1. REMEDIAL LAW; FILING OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IN THE SUPREME COURT. — Where counsel for petitioner had filled a motion to be permitted to file a motion for reconsideration of a Supreme Court resolution or take other legal remedies deem available to him, and the ground in support thereof is meritorious, the Court may in its discretion grant it.
R E S O L U T I O N *
DIZON, J.:
It appears that counsel for petitioners were served with notice of our resolution of April 30, 1963, on May 10 of the present year. On the 22nd of the same month, Attys. Ozaeta, Gibbs & Ozaeta made of record their appearance as counsel for petitioner company as well as for James Mckeen, the special administrator of the estate of petitioner Werner P. Schetelig, whose death they made of record.
We have now before us (1) a motion filed by said attorneys on behalf of the aforenamed special administrator, praying for the dismissal of this case in so far as the deceased Werner P. Schetelig and/or his estate is concerned, or that the estate of said deceased be granted a period of at least twenty (20) days from notice within which to file a motion for reconsideration or take other legal remedies proper and available to the estate, and (2) another motion of the same attorneys praying that petitioner company be granted an extension of twenty (20) days from May 25, 1963, within which to file a motion for reconsideration or take other action proper and available in the premises.
The motion for the dismissal of the case as far as it concerns the now deceased petitioner Werner P. Schetelig is denied for lack of merit.
On the other hand, the motions mentioned above being meritorious as far as the extension prayed for is concerned, said petitioners are hereby granted a period of twenty (20) days from notice hereof within which to file a motion for reconsideration of Our resolution of April 30, 1963 or to seek whatever legal remedy may to them seem proper.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Paredes, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
We have now before us (1) a motion filed by said attorneys on behalf of the aforenamed special administrator, praying for the dismissal of this case in so far as the deceased Werner P. Schetelig and/or his estate is concerned, or that the estate of said deceased be granted a period of at least twenty (20) days from notice within which to file a motion for reconsideration or take other legal remedies proper and available to the estate, and (2) another motion of the same attorneys praying that petitioner company be granted an extension of twenty (20) days from May 25, 1963, within which to file a motion for reconsideration or take other action proper and available in the premises.
The motion for the dismissal of the case as far as it concerns the now deceased petitioner Werner P. Schetelig is denied for lack of merit.
On the other hand, the motions mentioned above being meritorious as far as the extension prayed for is concerned, said petitioners are hereby granted a period of twenty (20) days from notice hereof within which to file a motion for reconsideration of Our resolution of April 30, 1963 or to seek whatever legal remedy may to them seem proper.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Paredes, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Footnote
* Editor’s Note: See main decision in 7 SCRA 1036.
