IN THE MATTER OF VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION BETWEEN — ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS, PETITIONER, VS. GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION (FEED MILLS), RESPONDENT.

The parties herein filed on February 22, 1979 a joint manifestation dated December 8, 1978 praying that this
case be dismissed for being moot and academic on the ground that on December 6, 1978, the parties,
assisted by their respective counsels, executed the following Compromise
Agreement:

“This COMPROMISE AGREEMENT, made and executed on this 20th day
of December, 1978, at the City of Manila, by and between the -?

“ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS, a legitimate labor organization duly
registered with the Department of Labor pursuant to Presidential Decree No.
442, and existing under the laws of the Philippines, with office address at
2357 Leon Guinto Sr. Street, Malate, Manila, represented herein by its National
President, Mr. DEMOCRITO T. MENDOZA and hereinafter referred to as the FIRST
PARTY,

– and
–

“GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION (Feed Mills), likewise a duly
organized corporate entity existing under the laws of the Philippines,
with office address at Pioneer Street, Pasig,
Metro Manila, represented herein by its Plant Manager, Mr. EDUARDO PE, and
hereinafter referred to as the SECOND PARTY.

– W I T N E S S E T H –

“1.     THAT, WHEREAS,
there exists presently between the First Party and the Second Party a labor
case pending resolution in the Supreme Court, entitled ‘In the matter of
voluntary arbitration between the Associated Labor Unions, Petitioner, versus
the General Milling Corporation (Feed Mills), Respondent’ and docketed as Case
No. SC. G.R. No. L-48979, O.P. Case No. 0441, which
case pertains to the petition of the First Party for review by certiorari
the DECISION rendered by the Office of the President of the Philippines (O.P.
Case No. 0441) on August 29, 1978, reversing the decisions of the Voluntary
Arbitrator, the NLRC and the Minister of Labor in NLRC Case UNNUMBERED;

“2.     THAT, WHEREAS,
the subject matter of this litigation concerns the pending grievance by the
First Party on the nonpayment by the Second Party of the 1975 alleged mid-year
bonus to all covered rank?and-file employees who are union members in
accordance with the Grievance Procedure under Section 1, Article VIII of their
former CBA that expired last November 1977, as well as the additional issue
that the same was never certified for arbitration;

“3.     THAT, WHEREAS,
the Sheriff of the Commission, by virtue of the WRIT OF EXECUTION issued by
Executive Labor Arbiter Guillermo C. Medina on September 5, 1977, was able to
garnish from the Bank of America the security deposited made by the Second
Party in the sum of P78,000.00 which amount allegedly represented the
accountabilities of the Second Party as per decision of Voluntary Arbitrator
Manuel Dia and affirmed by the First Division of the NLRC, and which sum of
P78,000.00 was roughly broken down by the Labor Analyst as follows:

“Mid-Year bonus
for 1975 . . . . . . . .   P58,000.00

  Backwages of 11
complainants . . .     20,000.00

T o t a l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .   P78,000.00

“4.     THAT, WHEREAS,
after a long, thorough and careful deliberation made by the parties herein,
bearing in mind the promotion of industrial peace and the lasting harmonious
relationship between labor and capital, they have finally come into a decision
to amicably settle this case ex curia (out of court).  On its part, the First Party hereby manifests
its intention to voluntarily withdraw as it hereby withdraws its Petition for
review by certiorari now pending before the Supreme Court without,
however, admitting that its petition is unmeritorious.  On its part, the Second Party, likewise,
agree that the sum of P78,000.00 which was garnished by the Sheriff of the NLRC
in favor of the Second Party, would be considered as delivered to the First
Party by way of an ‘ex-gratia’ settlement and not as a matter of right on the
part of the First Party but resting in the exercise of sound discretion on the
party of the Second Party; and, provided further, that in no way should the sum
herein mentioned be either construed as an admission by the Second Party of its
liability to the First Party or would it set as precedent for future claims by
the First Party or similar issues.  And,
provided finally, that the First Party waives forever whatever claims it may
have against the Second Party for the years 1976, 1977 and 1978;

“5.     THAT, WHEREAS,
the Second Party, as a consequence of this amicable settlement, has agreed to
pay the eleven (11) female individual claimants in the instant case who were
laid off for their job as a separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay.

“NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the above
premises, the First Party and the Second Party hereby enter and execute the
foregoing COMPROMISE AGREEMENT and hereby bind themselves to observe strictly
and faithfully all the terms and conditions herein set forth.”

THE AFOREQUOTED COMPROMISE AGREEMENT BEING NOT CONTRARY TO LAW,
GOOD MORALS, PUBLIC POLICY OR PUBLIC INTEREST, IS HEREBY APPROVED AND THE
PARTIES ARE HEREBY ENJOINED TO COMPLY WITH ITS TERMS AND STIPULATIONS.  THIS CASE IS HEREBY DECLARED CLOSED AND
TERMINATED.

NO COSTS.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Fernandez, Guerrero, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ.,
concur.