Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 12 2004.

G.R. No. 155530 (PICOP Resources, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, National Labor Relations Commission (Fifth Division) and Francisco Galola, Jojet Camba and Eddie Lumbocan.)

Petitioner PICOP Resources Inc. filed a Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's Resolution dated 27 November 2002, dismissing petitioner's petition for review. The Motion for Reconsideration raises two grounds to wit: that private respondents Eddie Lumbocan and Francisco H. Galola had purportedly entered into compromise agreements with petitioner and subsequently executed affidavits of desistance; and that the Court erred in affirming the award to private respondent Jojet Camba.[1] Subsequently, petitioner also filed a Manifestation and Motion alleging that private respondent Camba had also signed a Compromise Agreement and an Affidavit of Desistance.[2]

It appears though that on 10 December 2003, private respondents Lumbocan, Galola and Caimba executed a joint affidavit, wherein they claimed that they were deceived by one Conrad C. Cejoco, associate counsel of petitioner, into signing the Affidavits of Desistance and Compromise Agreement without their having read the contents thereof. They further averred that the payments they had purportedly received from the petitioner as a result were only cash advances, that they were not assisted by their attorney-in-fact, and that the Community Tax Certificates listed were not actually theirs, "but of another person."[3]

Doubt thus exists as to whether the private respondents truly intended to desist from pursuing the case. It does seem odd that they would have readily agreed to a compromise agreement considering that the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court had already ruled in their favor. Besides, the three private respondents stood to receive a total of P434,991.16 in money claims, or over P100,000.00 each. Yet under the alleged compromise agreements, the private respondents would receive the considerably lesser amount of only P45,000.00.[4]

Accordingly, the Court RESOLVES to DENY the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration dated 21 January 2003 with FINALITY, no compelling reason having been adduced to warrant the reconsideration sought.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG

Clerk of Court

[3] Id. at p. 286. Said affidavit was attached as one of the annexes to the Most Urgent Manifestation Supplemental Reply with Prayer to Dismiss Comment (on Manifestation & Motion) filed by private respondents on 16 December 2003.