This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-09-17 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| After the parties had filed their respective memoranda, Libang filed an Urgent Manifestation with Motion to Dismiss, invoking the Court's ruling in Career Philippines Ship Management, Inc. v. Madjus[33] wherein we affirmed on the ground of mootness the CA's dismissal of an appeal after the parties to the labor dispute had agreed on a satisfaction of judgment. Libang attached to his pleading a copy of the satisfaction of judgment which he executed with ISMI, Santos and Majestic on March 25, 2008. The Court, however, resolves to deny Libang's motion considering that the facts and circumstances in this case are different from those in Career Philippines. Specifically, the terms of the parties' satisfaction of judgment and waiver of rights in this case were different, the CA had already resolved the petition for certiorari on the merits, and Libang himself had invoked this Court's jurisdiction for the review of the case. | |||||
|
2013-06-10 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In its assailed January 5, 2012 Resolution, the CA denied the motion and ruled that the petition should have been dismissed for being moot and academic not only because the assailed decision of the NLRC had become final and executory on September 5, 2010, but also because the said judgment had been satisfied on October 22, 2010, even before the filing of the petition for certiorari on November 8, 2010. In so ruling, the CA cited the pronouncement in Career Philippines Ship Management v. Geronimo Madjus[7] where it was stated that the satisfaction of the monetary award rendered the petition for certiorari moot. | |||||