ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 193247. January 15, 2014.]
SERGIO CARBONILLA, et al., petitioners, vs. BOARD OF AIRLINES REPRESENTATIVES (Member Airlines: Asiana Airlines, et al.), respondents.
[G.R. No. 194246. January 15, 2014.]
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, et al., petitioners, vs. BOARD OF AIRLINES REPRESENTATIVES (Member Airlines: Asiana Airlines, et al.), respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 15 January 2014 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 193247: SERGIO CARBONILLA, et al. v. BOARD OF AIRLINES REPRESENTATIVES (Member Airlines: Asiana Airlines, et al.) and G.R. No. 194276: OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, et al. v. BOARD OF AIRLINES REPRESENTATIVES (Member Airlines: Asiana Airlines, et al.)
In a Decision promulgated on 14 September 2011, the Court denied the petition in G.R. No. 193247 and granted the petition in G.R. No. 194276. The Court, in G.R. No. 194276, set aside the 9 July 2009 Decision and 26 October 2010 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 103250 and directed the Bureau of Customs (BOC) to implement Customs Administrative Order No. 1-2005 (CAO 1-2005) immediately. CAO 1-2005 adjusted the overtime rates of BOC personnel. The Court eventually denied the Board of Airlines Representatives' (BAR) motion for reconsideration and second motion for reconsideration and entry of judgment was made on 7 June 2012.
Robert C. Rosales (Rosales), a retired personnel of the BOC, then came to this Court asking for the issuance of a show cause order against BAR for disregarding the Court's 14 September 2011 Decision. Atty. Ernesto D. Urbano (Urbano), a former Collector of Customs, likewise filed a motion for contempt against the BOC and BAR for their failure to implement the Court's 14 September 2011 Decision. CScaDH
BAR and the Office of the Solicitor General filed their respective comments on the motions. They pointed out, among others, that Rosales and Urbano are not parties to the original action before this Court.
In the original action, we denied the motion for intervention of Sergio I. Carbonilla, Emilio Y. Legaspi IV and Adonais Y. Rejuso, BOC personnel who claimed to be directly affected by the outcome of the case. We ruled that Carbonilla, et al. were really after the payment of their salary differential or back payments for services rendered. In the same manner, the motions of Rosales and Urbano are, in effect, for the satisfaction of their claims against BAR. Rosales and Urbano are not parties to this case and any right that they acquired by virtue of the decision should be brought as a collection case in a proper proceeding.
ACCORDINGLY, we DENY the motion for issuance of a show cause order filed by Robert C. Rosales and the motion for contempt filed by Atty. Ernesto D. Urbano since they are not parties to this case.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court