1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION; FINAL AND EXECUTORY JUDGMENT THEREOF; MAY NOT BE INTERFERED WITH BY CIVIL COURT BY MEANS OF INJUNCTION. — Article 254 of the Labor Code explicitly prohibits the issuance of an injunction in a labor case. In executing an order, resolution, or decision of the NLRC, the sheriff of the Commission, or other officer acting as such, must "be guided strictly by the Sheriff’s Manual which shall form part of these Rules" (Sec. 4, Rule XI, Revised Rules of the NLRC). Section 2, Rule VI of the Manual of Instructions for Sheriffs of the NLRC prescribes the procedure to be followed if property levied upon to satisfy a final judgment of the Commission is claimed by any person other than the losing party or his agent.

2. ID.; ID.; VESTED WITH APPELLATE JURISDICTION OVER DECISIONS, AWARDS AND ORDERS OF THE LABOR ARBITER. — Upon the denial of its third-party claim by Labor Arbiter Guimoc, GESCOR should have appealed to the NLRC within ten (10) working days instead of filing in the Regional Trial Court of Allen, Samar, a petition for Certiorari, Annulment of Judgment, and Quashal of Levy with Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction. Appellate jurisdiction over decisions, awards and orders of the Labor Arbiters is exclusively vested in the NLRC (Filipino Pipe Workers Union v. Batario, Jr., 163 SCRA 789). In view of the failure of GESCOR to seasonably appeal to the NLRC the resolution of Labor Arbiter Guimoc denying GESCOR’s third-party claim, that resolution became final. The RTC has no jurisdiction to review the Labor Arbiter’s orders denying the third-party claim.

3. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; JURISDICTION; CONTINUES UNTIL THE CASE IS TERMINATED. — By filing its third party claim with the NLRC sheriff Basilio on February 3, 1989, GESCOR submitted to the jurisdiction of the NLRC which exercised it through the Labor Arbiter by issuing a Resolution on April 24, 1989, denying said claim. Jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost upon the instance of the parties but continues until the case is terminated (Gimenez v. Nazareno, 160 SCRA 1; Rulona-Al Awadhi v. Astih, 165 SCRA 771; Landoil Resources Corp. v. Tensuan, 168 SCRA 569).

This petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, with prayer for the issuance of a preliminary restraining order seeks to annul the Order dated June 2, 1989 of respondent Judge Clemente C. Rosales of the Regional Trial Court, Branch XXIII at Allen, Samar, enjoining the petitioners from disposing of the properties subject of execution in NLRC-RAB-VIII Case No. 200064-88, as well as the Order dated June 28, 1989, denying the petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss Civil Case No. A-47 on jurisdictional ground.cralawnad

On October 26, 1988, a decision was rendered by Labor Arbiter Emiliano De Asis in NLRC Case No. RAB-VIII-2-00064-88 entitled, "Romeo M. Cruz, Et. Al. v. Looc Bay Timber Industries, Inc. (LBTI) and Visayan Forest Development Corp. (VFDC)," the dispositive portion of which is hereunder quoted as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, premises considered this Office finds respondents LOOC BAY TIMBER INDUSTRIES, INC. (LBTI) and VISAYAN FOREST DEV. CORP. (VFDC) guilty for non-payment of wages, minimum wage, Ecola, 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay and hereby ORDERS said respondents within ten (10) days from receipt of a copy of this Decision to pay the claim of herein below-listed complainants representing their Wage Differential, Unpaid Wages, Ecola and 13th month pay, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Name of Complainant Total Claim/Award

1. Gaspar Abiner P21,802.62

2. Wilfredo Ablazo 23,763.31

3. Armando Acedera 31,487.87

4. Martin Adlawan 31,274.15

5. Francisco Albuera 31,206.15

6. Henry Albuera 32,570.15

7. Levy Albuera 31,805.37

8. Teodoro Albuera 31,805.37

9. Leonido Aliganza 31,805.37

10. Esteban Amor 30,535.37

11. Pedro Amor 31,805.37

12. Rogelio Amor 31,805.37

13. Simon Amor 31,805.37

14. Emilio Andaya 30,535.65

15. Francisco Almorhila 30,553.66

16. Nicanor Bandal 30,535.37

17. Julian Banzon 20,844.15

18. Pio Banzon 24,415.87

19. Temestocles Banzon 25,534.37

20. Amancio Bigtas 24,696.37

21. Edgar Bigtas 29,052.37

22. Josefino Bigtas 25,511.62

23. Cefriano Benignay 30,535.37

24. Pedro Boral, Jr. 30,535.37

25. Eladio Bulawan 30,535.37

26. Donato Cabato 30,535.37

27. Renato Cabato 21,802.62

28. Rogelio Centino 30,535.37

29. Erlencio Corilla 30,730.37

30. Santos Corallo 31,487.87

31. Romeo Cruz 36,174.71

32. Ruben Custodio 29,171.83

33. Rhodmar Dalangpan 31,487.87

34. Anazario Deronia P31,487.87

35. Juan Bole 30,681.42

36. Banie Dalangpan 21,306.41

37. Jose Dronia 30,838.80

38. Zosimo Espinar 29,565.41

39. Domingo Flor 28,819.75

40. Eufronio Flor 29,398.91

41. Gregorio Frago 31,487.87

42. Aniceto Fugado 31,487.87

43. Felix Fugado 30,583.91

44. Norlito Gabitan 30,368.91

45. Manuel Gabion 20,162.91

46. Rogelio Gabrieto 31,805.37

47. Catalino Gadolfos 31,629.05

48. Adriano Gatarin 30,813.81

49. Cirilo Gayoso 24,914.98

50. Augusto Gubat 31,009.15

51. Luis Hapa 30,535.37

52. Rodrigo Igloso 31,055.87

53. Elorde Lobedeces 31,487.87

54. Alfredo Lukval, Jr. 31,207.15

55. Raul Magdarang 28,710.74

56. Crispulo Mahinay 31,487.87

57. Edgar Mahinay 30,535.37

58. Teddy Manalo 30,539.03

59. Maning Maurillo 23,376.37

60. Alfredo Lukyal, Sr. 31,207.15

61. Egidio Marzol 31,487.87

62. Bienvenido Millora 31,487.87

63. Jose Monares 17,418.91

64. Mamerto Parayray 31,805.37

65. Dionisio Pardillo 31,397.37

66. Miguel Porio 24,192.65

67. Ruben de los Reyes 20,896.65

68. Tranquilino Rosima 31,487.87

69. Ruben Sanoy 31,487.87

70. Henry Sauro 31,487.87

71. Lolito Siago, Sr. 31,736.74

72. Viador Pampong 29,309.40

73. Marlon Tejada 30,535.37

75. Alex Timtim 30,535.37

76. Lito Tizon 29,177.23.

77. Recto Turing 16,681.16

78. Benito Juan 31,487.87

79. Artemio Valdez, Sr. 30,644.65

80. Joselito Valdez 30,900.15

81. Bertito Yanson 31,487.87

82. Pablito Mahinay No available data for

computation

83. Alfredo Arsenal — do —

84. Lolito Siago, Jr. — do —

85. Andres Magdaraog 26,724.15

86. Tomas Magno 31,487

——————— Grand total P2,421,996.80

"This award however, to each of the above-mentioned complainants shall be subject to deduction of any advance or partial payments made by the respondents Looc Bay Timber Industries, Inc. (LTBI) and Visayan Forest Development Corporation (VFDC) at the time of the filing of the aforementioned case." (pp. 110-112, Rollo.).chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

On January 4, 1989, Labor Arbiter Benjamin Guimoc to whom the case was reassigned in view of De Asis’ transfer to the NLRC Bicol Region, issued a writ of execution 1 directing NLRC sheriff Felicisimo Basilio to execute the judgment against respondents Looc Bay Timber Industries (LBTI) and Visayan Forest Development Corporation (VFDC). Failing to collect the sum due, sheriff Basilio was directed to cause the satisfaction of the award out of the movable goods or chattels (machinery and logging equipment), or, in their absence, from the immovable property of respondent LBTI.

On the strength and by authority of the writ of execution, the sheriff proceeded to the premises of LBTI and made an inventory of its properties, levied on them and scheduled their sale at public auction on January 30, 1989 (although the sale was later postponed to February 6, 1989).

On February 3, 1989, three days before the auction sale, several third-party claims were filed with the NLRC Arbitration Branch VIII. among which was a third-party claim of respondent General Insurance & Surety Corporation (GESCOR).

Because of the filing of the third-party claims, the auction sale was suspended while Guimoc held hearings on the merits of the claims.

On April 24, 1989, Guimoc issued a resolution 2 declaring invalid and dismissing the third-party claims of Valvueco, Inc., Bueno Industrial and Development Corporation, Butuan Lumber Manufacturing Corporation, Puzon & Sons Enterprises, Inc., Big Country Ranch Corporation, Sierra Madre Projects, Inc. and herein respondent GESCOR.

On June 1, 1989, Basilio issued to LBTI and VFDC a Notice of Levy and Sale to be held on June 9, 1989 at 10:00 A.M. Copies of the notice were posted in conspicuous places at the NLRC, Tacloban, the premises of LBTI and in the Municipal Hall of San Isidro, Northern Samar.

On June 2, 1989, GESCOR filed against the Labor Arbiter Guimoc and Sheriff Basilio a petition for Prohibition, Certiorari, Annulment of Judgment and Quashal of levy with Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction 3 in the Regional Trial Court in Allen, Samar. The petition was docketed as Spl. Civil Action A-47, entitled, "General Insurance Services Corporation, petitioner v. Benjamin Guimoc and Felicisimo Basilio, Respondents."cralaw virtua1aw library

The petitioner alleged that GESCOR is the owner of the following properties levied on by Basilio:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

a. One unit Mack Truck with trailer;

b. One unit Crane with Engine No. DH-100, Serial No. Leader 75, with Engine No. DA 600-574639; Model No. 24204-28;

c. One unit Caterpillar with chassis and transmission with complete spare parts;

d. One unit ranger skidder with SN 13253, Model No. 3306 with 4 tires

e. One unit Logging Truck Fuso;

f. One unit Road Grader Kumatsu brand with Engine.

No. NH-220-261090 with chassis;.

g. One unit Generator set, Da 22253953, Volt 200/220-KV 30/35 with dynamo No. HO4383, CGL 50/60; and

h. One unit typewriter, Olivetti/Olympia; office type not portable.

and that GESCOR had filed a third-party claim with the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch but it was dismissed. GESCOR prayed that a restraining order be issued immediately to stop the auction sale; declare the levy null and void; declare GESCOR as the lawful owner of the properties in question; and order the defendants (now petitioners) jointly and severally, to pay GESCOR. attorneys fees and actual expenses.

On the same date, June 2, 1989, RTC Judge Clemente O. Rosales issued a Restraining Order 4 enjoining the defendants to desist and refrain from selling at public auction or disposing, in any manner, of the various pieces of machinery and equipment claimed by GESCOR. The Order also directed the defendants to answer the petition.

On June 13, 1989, Guimoc and Basilio, by themselves, filed a Motion to Dismiss 5 on the ground of the court’s lack of jurisdiction.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

On June 20, 1989, the motion to dismiss was heard and the parties were directed to submit memoranda.

On June 28, 1989, Judge Rosales denied the motion to dismiss. 6 Guimoc and Basilio promptly filed this petition for certiorari to review and annul said order.

The core issue in this case is whether a civil court may interfere by injunction with the execution of a final and executory judgment of the NLRC.

The answer is no. Article 254 of the Labor Code explicitly prohibits the issuance of an injunction in a labor case.

"ART. 254. Injunction prohibited. — No temporary or permanent injunction or restraining order in any case involving or growing out of labor disputes shall be issued by any court or other entity, except as otherwise provided in Articles 218 and 264 of this Code."cralaw virtua1aw library

In executing an order, resolution, or decision of the NLRC, the sheriff of the Commission, or other officer acting as such, must "be guided strictly by the Sheriff’s Manual which shall form part of these Rules" (Sec. 4, Rule XI, Revised Rules of the NLRC).

The Manual of Instructions for Sheriffs of the NLRC was adopted and promulgated pursuant to Article 218(a) of the Labor Code, as amended, which authorizes the NLRC —

"ART. 218. Powers of the Commission. — . . .

(a) To promulgate rules and regulations governing the hearing and disposition of cases before it and its regional branches, as well as those pertaining to its internal functions and such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Code;"

Said Manual of Instructions was issued on May 19, 1988 and published in The Official Gazette (84 O.G. No. 29, 4327) on July 18, 1988. It became effective fifteen (15) days later.

Section 2, Rule VI of the Manual of Instructions for Sheriffs of the NLRC prescribes the procedure to be followed if property levied upon to satisfy a final judgment of the Commission is claimed by any person other than the losing party or his agent:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Section 2. Proceedings. — If property levied upon be claimed by any person other than the losing party or his agent, such person shall make an affidavit of his title thereto or right to the possession thereof, stating the grounds of such right or title and shall file the same with the sheriff and copies thereof served upon the Labor Arbiter or proper officer issuing the writ and upon the prevailing party. Upon receipt of the third party claim, all proceedings with respect to the execution of the property subject of the third party claim shall automatically be suspended and the Labor Arbiter or proper officer issuing the writ shall conduct a hearing with due notice to all parties concerned and resolve the validity of the claim within ten (10) working days from receipt thereof and his decision is appealable to the Commission within ten (10) working days from notice, and the Commission shall likewise resolve the appeal within the same period." (Emphasis provided.)

Upon the denial of its third-party claim by Labor Arbiter Guimoc, GESCOR should have appealed to the NLRC within ten (10) working days instead of filing in the Regional Trial Court of Allen, Samar, a petition for Certiorari, Annulment of Judgment, and Quashal of Levy with Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction. Appellate jurisdiction over decisions, awards and orders of the Labor Arbiters is exclusively vested in the NLRC (Filipino Pipe Workers Union v. Batario, Jr., 163 SCRA 789). Therefore, Judge Rosales should have granted petitioners’ motion to dismiss the action for he did not have jurisdiction to entertain it.

By filing its third party claim with the NLRC sheriff Basilio on February 3, 1989, GESCOR submitted to the jurisdiction of the NLRC which exercised it through the Labor Arbiter by issuing a Resolution on April 24, 1989, denying said claim.

Jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost upon the instance of the parties but continues until the case is terminated (Gimenez v. Nazareno, 160 SCRA 1; Rulona-A1 Awadhi v. Astih, 165 SCRA 771; Landoil Resources Corp. v. Tensuan, 168 SCRA 569).

The NLRC’s jurisdiction to execute its decisions has been upheld by this Court:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The NLRC has the authority to look into the correctness of the execution of its decision." (Medado v. Court of Appeals, 185 SCRA 80, 81).

"Whatever irregularities that attended the issuance of the alias writ of execution should be referred to the same administrative tribunal which rendered the decision. Despite finality of the decision of the Minister of Labor, he, not the regular courts, retained control over its execution and implementation." (Pucan v. Bengzon, 155 SCRA 692, 693.)

In view of the failure of GESCOR to seasonably appeal to the NLRC the resolution of Labor Arbiter Guimoc denying GESCOR’s third-party claim, that resolution became final. The RTC has no jurisdiction to review the Labor Arbiter’s orders denying the third-party claim.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

The decision of the Labor Arbiter in favor of all the complainants specifically awarded the total sum of P2,421,996.80. Although the decision contains a proviso that the award to each of the complainants shall be subject to deduction of advances or partial payments made to them by LBTI and VFDC, this proviso does not make the decision incomplete or conditional. The computation and deduction of advances or partial payments from the awards are purely administrative functions of the Administrative Assistant of the NLRC. Except for this detail, there is nothing more to be done by the Labor Arbiter with respect to the awards.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is granted. The assailed orders dated June 2, 1989 and June 28, 1989 of respondent Judge are hereby annulled and set aside. Let the Writ of Execution dated January 4, 1989 be enforced and implemented. Costs against the private respondent General Insurance Services Corporation.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, Cruz and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

---

1. pp. 110-113, Rollo.

2. pp. 84-109, Rollo.

3. pp. 17-22, Rollo.

4. p. 24, Rollo.

5. pp. 22-23, Rollo.

6. pp. 34-39, Rollo.