February 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. Nos. 196922 and 196928-29 ; February 08, 2012]
SULPICIO LINES, INC. AND SOLID TOWAGE AND LIGHTERAGE CO., INC., ET AL. v. VINNELL ABORBE, ET AL., UNYON NG MGA MANDARAGAT SA SULPICIO LINES, INC./SOLID STOWAGE AND LIGHTERAGE CO., INC., ET AL. AND ALEXANDER KIAMCO, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 196922 and 196928-29 (Sulpicio Lines, Inc. and Solid Towage and Lighterage Co., Inc., et al. v. Vinnell Aborbe, et al., Unyon ng mga Mandaragat sa Sulpicio Lines, Inc./Solid Stowage and Lighterage Co., Inc., et al. and Alexander Kiamco, et al.); G.R. No. 196937 (Unyon ng mga Mandaragat sa Sulpicio Lines, Inc./Solid Stowage and Lighterage Co., Inc. v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc. and Solid Stowage and Lighterage Co., Inc.); G.R. No. 197090 (Alexander Kiamco, et al. v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc. and Solid Lighterage Co., Inc., Carlos Go, Atty. Manuel Espina, and Atty. Geraldine Jorda). - On 16 November 2011, this Court issued a Resolution consolidating the abovenamed petitions and denying them for failure to show reversible error in the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA). The latter had ordered the remand of the case to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for: (1) the identification of the union officers who participated in the illegal strike, as well as the union members who committed illegal acts during the course of the strike, and who defied the Return-to-Work Order of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE); and (2) the issuance of an order directing the reinstatement of union members who did not participate or commit illegal acts in the illegal strike and the payment of backwages or separation pay to these members.
Before this Court is a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's 16 November 2011 Resolution filed by petitioners Kiamco, et al. They argue that the Court should rule on the merits of the Petition, because such ruling would save them from protracted litigation and would be well within its power.
We deny the motion.
The resolution of this case requires factual determination to be culled from copious evidence presented by the parties regarding the actuations of each of over two hundred eighty (280) union officers and members during the four-day strike.
We have time and again held that this Court is not a trier of facts and thus, is not equipped to determine the truth of factual allegations.[1] It will not sift through the voluminous evidence on record to resolve factual inquiries, the determination of which is the statutory function of the NLRC.[2]cralaw
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioners Kiamco, et al. is DENIED with FINALITY. No further pleadings or motions shall be entertained in this case. Let entry of judgment be made in due course.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 147589, 26 June 2001, 359 SCRA 698.[2] P.J. Lhuillier v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 158758, 29 April 2005, 457 SCRA 784.