Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Cebu City

NINETEENTH (19th) DIVISION

MANUEL ROZAL,
Petitioner,

-versus- CA-G.R. CEB SP. No. 01085

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

COMMISSION (4TH DIVISION) and
JAIME VALIDA, JR.
Respondents.

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

OPPOSITION
TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF THE DECISION PROMULGATED 2 MARCH 2006

RESPONDENT, by counsel, opposes the petitioner’s

Motion for Reconsideration of the DECISION promulgated by
this Honorable Court on 2 March 2006 on the following
grounds:

1. The Motion for reconsideration is PRO-FORMA,

repeating the same arguments raised by petitioner in his
previous pleadings before the Labor Arbiter and the public
respondent NLRC 4th Division; as a matter of fact, the instant
Motion for reconsideration is a REHASH of the petitioner’s
Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration of the
Resolution of the public respondent NLRC 4 th Division
promulgated on 31 August 2004.

2. These same issues now raised on certiorari under

Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure have already
 2

been judiciously reviewed and resolved by this Honorable

Appellate Court, which ruled:

“In sum, there is no cogent reason for us to

disturb the findings of the public respondent,
affirming that of the labor arbiter, that there is no
employer-employee relationship between the
parties. Petitioner failed to establish such
relationship and merely assumed the continuance
of the employer-employee relationship it had with
the private respondent’s father. No grave abuse of
discretion can therefore be attributed to the public
respondent for absolving private respondent from
any liability towards the petitioner.”

3. Thus, petitioner’s stubborn repetition of the same

arguments in this Motion is simply begging off the questions
again.

3. To further prove his point, Private Respondent herby

adopts in toto his “OPPOSITION to the Motion for
Reconsideration of the Resolution dated 1 February 2005”,
which is ANNEX “1” of his COMMENTS to the PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI dated 13 October 2005.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Court to DENY the complainant’s
Motion for Reconsideration as there is no cogent reason to
disturb its DECISION sought to be reconsidered.

Tacloban City for Cebu City. 27 March 2006.

LEO S. GIRON
Counsel for Private Respondent
253 Avenida Veteranos, Tacloban City
Roll No. 37379
IBP Lifetime No. 00733
 3

PTR No. 6001273; 1-2-06; Tacloban City

COPY FURNISHED: Reg. Mail with Return Card

Atty.Jennifer Y. Verzosa
Counsel for the Petitioner
2/F Metrobank Bldg.
P. Burgos St., Tacloban City

NLRC 4th Division

Public Respondent
2F Orient Bldg.
Gen. Echavez-San Miguel Sts.
Cebu City

EXPLANATION
(Under Sec. 11, Rule 13, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

This Opposition is being filed with this Honorable Court,

and copies thereof are furnished to the opposing counsel and
public respondent NLRC 4th Division by registered mail in lieu
of personal service due to distance, registry receipts hereto
attached as proof of service.

LEO S. GIRON