VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO, CEFERINA LLAMAS VDA, DE DEL ROSARIO, TERESITA REYES & DIOSDADO LARRA­ZABAL, PETITIONERS, VS. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & THE PHILIP­PINE LAND-AIR…

On July 13, 1967
judgment was rendered in the above-entitled case, a copy of which was served
upon and received by petitioners on July 28 of the same year. On August 22,
they filed a motion for recon­sideration in connection with which, by our
resolution of August 25 of the same year, they were granted leave to file a
supporting memorandum. On September 2,
1967, they filed SUPPLEMENTAL ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION which ended praying “that the decision promulgated on July 13, 1967 in this case be set
aside”.

On September 2, 1967,
the respondents filed a written opposition to the motion for reconsideration.

On September 8, 1967, We passed a resolution denying, among others, the
reconsideration prayed for in the
abovementioned Supplemental Arguments in Support of the Motion for
Reconsideration.

On October
13, 1967 entry of
judgment was made.

But on April 23, 1968,
petitioners filed another motion for reconsideration claiming that the decision
rendered in the case was not in accordance with settled jurisprudence on the
matter.  This motion We
denied on May 3, 1968,
for the reason that final judgment had already been entered in the case on October
13, 1967.

On June 27, 1968,
petitioners again came with a motion for reconsideration claiming (a) that there is as yet no resolution on the
basic motion for reconsideration and that, therefore, the entry of judgment was
premature, null and void, and that (b) their motion for reconsideration
(presumably the last) was meritorious.

We find no merit in
petitioners’ contention that their basic motion for reconsideration has not yet
been resolved.  As stated heretofore, in
their supplemental arguments in support of their basic motion for recon­sideration,
they prayed precisely that our decision of July 13, 1967 be set aside.  This is what We
denied, inter alia, by our resolution of September 8, 1967, a copy of which was
received by petitioners’ counsel on October
6, 1967. It is, therefore, clear that the decision of this court had
already become final and executory when the entry of judgment was made.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the last motion for
reconsideration filed by petitioner‘s on July 27 1968 can no longer be
considered.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, JBL, Makalintal, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Zaldivar, J.  took no part.