[ G.R. No. L-39742. December 02, 1980 ] 189 Phil. 358
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. L-39742. December 02, 1980 ]
AIR MANILA, INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N
GENTLEMEN:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court of En Banc dated December 2, 1980
“L-39742 (Air Manila, Inc., et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al.). - The Court finds no further reason for delay in the enforcement and implementation of the writ of execution issued by its Clerk of Court on June 14, 1978 against petitioner Air Manila, Inc. for satisfaction of the total net amount of P4,012,090.42 (one third of the gross award of P6,018,135.63 or the sum of P2,006,045.21 having been deducted as and for earnings elsewhere) determined and awarded as and by way of net backwages, pursuant to the Court’s per curiam Resolution of June 9, 1978 (reported in 83 SCRA 579, 592) - more than sufficient time and opportunity having been afforded petitioner Air Manila, Inc. and its owner-president, Ricardo C. Silverio since the hearing held on June 20, 1978 for the purpose of hearing any specific proposal from Mr. Silverio on how to satisfy the money judgment in the aforesaid amount of P4,012,090.42 and such amicable settlement as the parties may reach, for which purpose the Court had extended the period of suspension of the execution of the judgment up to June 28, 1978 only although several extensions were granted thereafter - and accordingly DENIES petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid Resolution of June 9, 1978 and this denial is FINAL and immediately executory. The aforesaid writ of execution issued by the Clerk of Court is hereby made returnable to this Court within sixty (60) days from this date. FERNANDO, C.J., while not oblivious to the significance of the procedural principle expressed so emphatically and so vehemently in the dissent of Justice Barredo, concurs in the result primarily on the ground that in labor controversies, doctrines of such character must yield to the peremptory to labor provisions of the Constitution if the fundamental law is to retain its character as such and if this Court is to be faithful to its sworn duty if enforcing its mandates. TEEHANKEE, J. filed a separate concurrence and BARREDO, J. filed a dissent. AQUINO and ABAD SANTOS, JJ. took no part.”