[ G.R. No. L-2069, May 30, 1949 ]
LUZON BROKERAGE CO., INC., PETITIONER, VS. LUZON LABOR UNION, JUDGES ARSENIO ROLDAN, JUAN LANTING AND MODESTO CASTILLO, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
The question that emerges from these facts is the power of the Court of Inudustrial Relations to amend or modify its decision on the date and in the manner and form above set forth. It is the contention of the respondent that the said decision had become final and that the court had lost jurisdiction to alter, modify or change it.
We do not think that the Court of Industrial Relations acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. The hearing and the taking of evidence was necessary to carry into effect the decision. The change is in reality not a modification but a confirmation of the judgment.
Even if the order complained of were out of harmony with the original decision, the same would still be within the authority of the court to make under sections 17 and 18 of Commonwealth Act No. 103 which read:
"Limit of effectiveness of award. An award, order or decision of the Couert shall be valid and effective during the time therein specified. In the absence of such specification, any party or both parties to a controversy may terminate teh effectiveness of an award, order or decision after three years have elapsed from the date of said award, order or decision by giving notice ot that effect to the Court: Provided, however, That at any time during the effectiveness of an award, order or decision, the Court may, on application of an interested party, and after due hearing, alter, modify in whole or in part, or set aside any such award, order or decision, or reopen any question involved therein.
"Interpretation of award. Whenever a doubt shall arise as to the meaning or interpretation of an award, order or decision of the Court of Industrial Relations, any interested party may petition the Court to determine such meaning or interpretation and the Court, upon receiving such petition, shall set a date for the hearing of the case and shall dispose of the same as soon as practicable."
The court's action was, in our opinion, in entire conformity with these provisions.
The petition is denied with costs against the petitioner.
Ozaeta, Paras, Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, Montemayor, and Reyes, JJ., concur.
TUASON, J.:I certify that the Chief Justice concurs in this decision.