Endnotes:
TEEHANKEE, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. Of twelve members of the Court then presided by Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro, Aquino, J. did not take part, and Palma and Concepcion, JJ., were on leave.
2. Rollo, at page 641; Emphasis supplied.
3. Idem, at page 688; Emphasis supplied.
4. Idem, at page 715.
5. Paragraph II, at p. 2 of Justice Barredo’s dissenting opinion; Emphasis supplied.
6. The CIR en banc October 10, 1974 Resolution signed unanimously by the four participating judges thus read:" (T)his concerns the Motion filed on September 2, 1974 by petitioners Air Manila, Inc., Et Al., thru counsel, seeking clarification of the Resolution of the Court en banc dated July 23, 1974."After a careful study and analysis of the opinions rendered in the aforesaid Resolution, the Court en banc is of the considered view, and so holds, that the subject Resolution is already clear enough as to its substance, as well as the participation or votes of the members of the Court en banc on the same, that it feels no further necessary or justification to clarify the same.
"As can be readily seen from the face of said Resolution, Hon. Association Judge Alberto S. Veloso and Hon. Acting Associate Judge Guillermo C. Medina voted for a modification of the Orders of the Trial Court dated March 6, 1973, June 16, 1973 and November 16, 1973 to give a chance to the petitioner company to prove the earnings elsewhere, payments allegedly affected alleged errors in the computation of the so called ’by pass pay’ for 707 Jet Captains and for hiring of Electra Flight Pilots. And, in the ’Concurring in Part with Separate Opinion’ of Hon. Acting Associate Judges Alberto L. Dalmacion and Pedro F. Perez, it is explicitly stated that they vote’ ’. . . not only for a modification of the aforementioned Orders of the Trial Court dated March 6, 1973, June 16, 1973 and November 16, 1973, but also for the allowance of the subject Motion for Reconsideration . . .’
"It is thus clear that there are already four (4) notes from among the present membership and composition of the Court en banc for a limited modification of the aforesaid three (3) Orders and for the reception of evidence only on the alleged earnings elsewhere alleged payments affected, alleged errors in the computation of the ’by pass pay’ for the 707 Jet Captains and for the hiring of the Electra Flight Pilots. There were only two (2) votes for a total allowance of the petitioner company’s Motion for Reconsideration.
"MOTION DENIED." (Emphasis supplied)
7. 83 SCRA at page 587; cf. Reyes v. Arca, 35 SCRA 247, holding that a judge is guilty of contumacious conduct in refusing to enforce a final judgment of the Supreme Court.
8. 61 SCRA 49 (1974).
9. Kabigting v. Director of Prisons, 6 SCRA 281 (1962).
10. 35 SCRA 247, Italics supplied.
11. 3 SCRA 418, 423 (1961); Italics supplied.
12. See Visayan Stevedore Trans. Co. v. WCC, L-42403, Nov. 17, 1976; Banzon v. Court of Appeals, L-46464, Nov. 21, 1979; Guardiano v. Talisay-Silay Milling Co., G.R. No. 52288, June 20, 1980 and Luding v. Hon. Jesus N. Borromeo, L-33281, Oct. 28, 1980.