Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 19 views

    Ca-G.r. SP No. 14994

    Uploaded by

    Net Weight
    The Court of Appeals issued a resolution granting the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners Mark Master Security Agency et al., setting aside its previous resolution and reinstating the petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The Court required the private respondent to file a comment on the petition within 10 days and allowed the petitioners 5 days to file a reply once the comment is received. The Court also directed counsel for both parties to notify it of any pending or subsequent cases involving the same parties and issues.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ca-G.r. SP No. 14994

    Uploaded by

    Net Weight
    19 views2 pages
    The Court of Appeals issued a resolution granting the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners Mark Master Security Agency et al., setting aside its previous resolution and reinstating the petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The Court required the private respondent to file a comment on the petition within 10 days and allowed the petitioners 5 days to file a reply once the comment is received. The Court also directed counsel for both parties to notify it of any pending or subsequent cases involving the same parties and issues.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    CA-G.R. SP NO. 14994

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Court of Appeals issued a resolution granting the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners Mark Master Security Agency et al., setting aside its previous resolution and reinstating the petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The Court required the private respondent to file a comment on the petition within 10 days and allowed the petitioners 5 days to file a reply once the comment is received. The Court also directed counsel for both parties to notify it of any pending or subsequent cases involving the same parties and issues.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    19 views2 pages

    Ca-G.r. SP No. 14994

    Uploaded by

    Net Weight
    The Court of Appeals issued a resolution granting the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners Mark Master Security Agency et al., setting aside its previous resolution and reinstating the petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The Court required the private respondent to file a comment on the petition within 10 days and allowed the petitioners 5 days to file a reply once the comment is received. The Court also directed counsel for both parties to notify it of any pending or subsequent cases involving the same parties and issues.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Republic of the Philippines

    Court of Appeals
    Cebu City

    Sir/Madam:

    Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a Resolution


    of this Court (NINETEENTH DIVISION) dated 31 January 2023:

    CA-G.R. SP NO. 14994 “MARK MASTER SECURITY AGENCY, ET


    AL. VS. NLRC, 7 DIVISION and RENATO R. BACOLOD”
    th

    “The Court resolved to:

    1) GRANT the Motion for Reconsideration of


    the Resolution dated May 24, 2022, filed by
    petitioners, rectifying the infirmities noted by
    the Court in its May 24, 2022 Resolution;

    2) SET ASIDE the Court's May 24, 2022


    Resolution and REINSTATE the Petition for
    Certiorari Under Rule 65;

    3) REQUIRE the private respondent to file


    COMMENT on the Petition (not a motion to
    dismiss), within ten (10) days from notice. The
    petitioners, in turn, may file a REPLY, within
    five (5) days from receipt of the private
    respondent's Comment; and

    4) DIRECT the counsel/parties to promptly


    notify this Court of any pending and/or
    subsequent filing of any case involving the same
    parties and issues (A.M. NO. CA-13-51- J).
    This shall be deemed a continuing order for the
    guidance and compliance of the parties' lawyers
    during the pendency of the case.”

    (per Agendum dated October 25, 2022)

    Witness the Honorable MARILYN B. LAGURA-YAP,


    Chairperson, the Honorable JACINTO G. FAJARDO, JR., Member
    and the Honorable ROGELIO G. LARGO, Member, this 31st day
    of January 2023.

    Very truly yours,

    ATTY. MARIA LOURDES R. APAWAN


    Division Clerk of Court
    19TH Division
    Page 2

    Copy furnished:

    Atty. Bea Veronica M. Lee -reg.w/rc


    (counsel for petitioners)
    SALiGAL Law
    SAPAYAN LIM ALVAREZ & LIGUTAN LAW OFFICES
    Unit 2N, Sail Center Commercial Complex
    Jose L. Briones St., North Reclamation Area
    6000 Cebu City

    Atty. Daniel Francis Arguedo -reg.w/rc


    (counsel for private respondent)
    3rd Floor, L & K Bldg.,
    Don Jose Avila St., Capitol Site
    6000 Cebu City

    National Labor Relations Commission- reg w/rc


    7th Division
    5th Floor., DOLE VII Bldg.,
    cor. Gen. Maxilom and Gorordo Avenue
    6000 Cebu City

    Special Cases Section-CA

    Office of J. Lagura-Yap

    *Please inform the Court of any change in your address.

    You might also like