THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 236271, April 03, 2019
RO-ANN VETERINARY MANUFACTURING INC., RONILO DELA CRUZ AND RAFAELITO LAGAT, JR., PETITIONERS, v. FERNANDO A. BINGBING, AND GILBERT C. VILLASEÑOR, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
A. REYES, JR., J.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring [respondents] as illegally dismissed from their employment. Consequently, [petitioner corporation] Ro-Ann Veterinary Manufacturing, Inc. is hereby ordered to pay [respondents] the total amount of FOUR HUNDRED NINETY THREE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY SIX PESOS and 64/100 (P493.276.64), representing the latter's separation pay, backwages, salary differentials, 13th month pay and ten percent (10%) attorney's fees, as computed above.Petitioners sought recourse with the NLRC through an appeal, but the same was dismissed through the latter's Decision15 dated September 30, 2015. The decision affirmed the findings of the LA, but deleted the monetary award in favor of respondent Bingbing because the latter's position paper was not appended to the records of the case. The dispositive portion of said decision reads as follows:
All other claims and charges are hereby dismissed, for lack of factual and/or legal basis.
SO ORDERED.14
WHEREFORE, premises considered, [petitioners] Appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit.Petitioners and respondent Bingbing immediately moved for reconsideration, but only the latter's motion was granted, thus, effectively reinstating the LA's March 27, 2015 Decision.17 On the part of petitioners, the NLRC found no merit in their Motion for Reconsideration (MR) and denied it in a Resolution18 dated January 25, 2016, the dispositive portion of which states:
The decision of the Labor Arbiter is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The monetary award of [respondent] Bingbing is hereby DELETED.
SO ORDERED.16
ACCORDINGLY, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.Aggrieved, petitioners elevated the case to the CA on March 28, 2016 via a Petition for Certiorari20 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
No further Motion for Reconsideration shall be entertained.
SO ORDERED.19
The Court RESOLVES to NOTE the Mediator's Report dated June 21, 2017 with attached Ex-Parte Manifestation stating that petitioners have already paid the monetary awards of respondents and the instant case had already been considered closed and terminated as of May 17, 2017 as evidenced by the Order issued by the NLRC.Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, but the same was denied by the CA in its Resolution32 dated December 21, 2017. Hence, the filing o the present petition for review on certiorari.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is hereby considered WITHDRAWN and the case is deemed CLOSED AND TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED.31 (Emphasis supplied)
A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the same as an appeal. In an appeal, the appellate court reviews errors of judgment. On the other hand, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not an appeal but a special civil action, where the reviewing court has jurisdiction only over errors of jurisdiction. We have consistently emphasized that a special civil action for certiorari and an appeal are "mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive." A petition filed under Rule 65 cannot serve as a substitute for an appeal.Definitely, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an entirely independent action from the proceedings initiated with the court of origin. It is neither a part nor a continuation of the original suit.39 Accordingly, being a separate and distinct action, the proceedings before the NLRC, even upon reaching finality, and even after execution, should not influence the petition for certiorari pending before the CA.
Thus, while we said in St. Martin that a special civil action under Rule 65 is proper to seek the review of an NLRC decision, this remedy is, by no means, intended to be an alternative to an appeal. It is not a substitute for an appeal that was devised to circumvent the absence of a statutory basis for the remedy of appeal of NLRC's decisions. It is not a means to review the entire decision of the NLRC for reversible errors on questions of fact and law.38 (Citations omitted and emphasis supplied)
As explained by the Court in Leonis Navigation v. Villameter,41 the aforementioned Sections highlight the rule that although the CA may review decisions or resolutions of the NLRC on jurisdictional issues, the same does not interfere with them becoming final and executory. The Court further emphasized that the only exception to said rule is when the execution is restrained by the proper court.42RULE XI
EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS
SECTION 1. EXECUTION UPON FINALITY OF DECISION OR ORDER - a) A writ of execution may be issued motu proprio or on motion, upon a decision or order that has become final and executory.
b) If an appeal has been duly perfected and finally resolved by the Commission, a motion for execution may be filed before the Labor Arbiter, when the latter has possession of the case records or upon submission of certified true copies of the decisions or final order/s sought to be enforced including notice of decision or order and the entry of judgment, copy furnished the adverse party.
x x x x
SECTION 2. EXECUTION BY MOTION OR BY INDEPENDENT ACTION. - Pursuant to Art. 224 of the Labor Code, a decision or order may be executed on motion within five (5) years from the date it becomes final and executory. After the lapse of such period, the judgment shall become dormant, and may only be enforced by an independent action before the Regional Arbitration Branch of origin and within a period often (10) years from date of its finality.
SECTION 3. EFFECT OF PERFECTION OF APPEAL ON EXECUTION. - The perfection of an appeal shall stay the execution of the decision of the Labor Arbiter except execution for reinstatement pending appeal.
SECTION 4. EFFECT OF PETITION FOR CERTIORARI ON EXECUTION - A petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court shall not stay the execution of the assailed decision unless a restraining order is issued by said courts. (Emphasis supplied)
SECTION 17. EFFECT OF REVERSAL DURING EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS. - In case of total or partial reversal of judgment by the Court of Appeals, the execution proceedings shall be suspended insofar as the reversal is concerned notwithstanding the pendency of a motion for reconsideration on such judgment.Applying the above-mentioned provisions of law, the Court has been consistent in ruling that the payment of a judgment award by virtue of the execution of a decision, resolution, or order of the NLRC is without prejudice to further recourse before the CA.45
However, where the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed by the Supreme Court, execution proceedings shall commence upon presentation of certified true copy of the decision and entry of judgment.43
SECTION 18. RESTITUTION. - Where the executed judgment is totally or partially reversed or annulled by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court with finality and restitution is so ordered, the Labor Arbiter shall, on motion, issue such order of restitution of the executed award, except reinstatement wages paid pending appeal.44 (Emphasis supplied)
The petition for certiorari filed by respondents with the CA was not rendered moot and academic by their satisfaction of the judgment award in compliance with the writ of execution issued by the LA. The case of Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc. v. Madjus, cited by petitioner, finds no application in the present case. In the said case, while the petitioner employer had the luxury of having other remedies available to it such as its petition for certiorari pending before the CA and an eventual appeal to this Court, the respondent seafarer, in consideration of the satisfaction of judgment made by his employer, was made to execute an affidavit where he undertook that he will no longer pursue other claims after receiving payment arising from his employer's satisfaction of the judgment award. For equitable considerations, this Court held that the LA and the CA could not be faulted for interpreting the employer's "conditional settlement" to be tantamount to an amicable settlement of the case resulting in the mootness of the petition for certiorari filed by the employer before the CA.Verily, in the case at bar, it is obvious that petitioners did not voluntarily pay or settle respondents' monetary claims. As culled from the records, the full satisfaction of the judgment award came about due to the enforcement of the LA's Writ of Execution50 dated August 8, 2016, By virtue of said enforcement, the Cash Bond51 posted by petitioners with the NLRC was executed against and the latter's account with Metrobank in Alaminos City, Pangasinan was garnished.52 Thus, as correctly argued by petitioners, since the full satisfaction of respondents' judgment award was done in strict compliance with a duly issued writ of execution, the same cannot be taken as a voluntary settlement of the monetary claims.
In the instant case, however, the records at hand show that no form of settlement was executed between the parties. Respondents' payment of the judgment award, without prejudice, required no obligations whatsoever on the part of petitioner. The satisfaction of the judgment award may not be considered as an amicable settlement between the parties as it was simply made in strict compliance with or wholly by virtue of satisfying a duly issued writ of execution. Thus, the equitable ruling in Career Philippines, may not be made to apply in the present case, otherwise, it would be unfair to respondents because it would prevent them from availing of the remedies available to them under the Rules of Court, such as the petition for certiorari they filed with the CA.49 (Citations omitted and emphasis supplied)
Very truly yours, (SGD) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
* Designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2624, dated November 29, 2018.
1Rollo, pp. 10-26.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Socorro B. Inting with Associate Justices Romeo F. Barza (now Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals) and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting concurring.
3 Id. at 36-37.
4 Id.at 81-82.
5 Id. at 84-94.
6 Id. at 98-105.
7 Id. at 13-15.
8 "GUD DAY SIR/MADAM, I WOULD LIKE TO INFORM YOU THAT GILBERT VILLASEÑOR AND FERNANDO BINGBING ARE NOT CONNECTED IN ROAN VET. PRODUCT (RJ2L ENT.) ANY TRANSACTION REGARDING ROAN PRODUCTS CONTRACT TO RJ2L ROAN BIKOL DIRECTLY. THKS ND MORE POWER." CA rollo, pp. 151-152.
9Rollo, pp. 98-99.
10 Id. at 126.
11 Id.
12 CA rollo, pp. 127-143; 149-163.
13Rollo, pp. 98-105.
14 Id. at 105.
15 Id. at 120-130.
16 Id. at 130.
17 Id. at 122.
18 Id. at 112-113.
19 Id. at 112.
20 Id. at 84-95.
21 Id. at 58-62.
22 Id. at 105.
23 SECTION 1. VERIFIED PETITION. - A party aggrieved by any order or resolution of the Labor Arbiter, including a writ of execution and others issued during execution proceedings, may file a verified petition to annul or modify the same. The petition may be accompanied by an application for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary or permanent injunction to enjoin the Labor Arbiter, or any person acting under his/her authority, to desist from enforcing said resolution, order or writ.
24Rollo, p, 54.
25 Id. at 169-182.
26 Id. at 48.
27 CA rollo, p. 242.
28 Id. at 244.
29 Id. at 243.
30 Id. at 247-248.
31 Id. at 247.
32Rollo, pp. 81-82.
33 Id. at 199-201.
34 Id. at 19-20.
35 Id.
36See Philippine National Bank v. Gregorio, G.R. No. 194944, September 18, 2017, 840 SCRA 37; Oasis Park Hotel v. Navaluna, 800 Phil, 244, 260 (2016); St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC, 356 Phil. 811, 819 (1998).
37 Supra note 36.
38 Id. at 50-51.
39China Banking Corp. v. Cebu Printing and Packaging Corp., 642 Phil. 308, 321 (2010); Spouses Diaz v. Diaz, 387 Phil. 314, 333-334 (2000).
40 As amended by En Banc Resolution Nos. 11-12, Series of 2012 and 05-14, Series of 2014.
41 628 Phil. 81, 93-94 (2010), citing Bago v. NLRC 549 Phil. 414, 428 (2007).
42 Id.
43 As amended by En Banc Resolution Nos. 11-12, Series of 2012.
44 As amended by En Banc Resolution Nos. 11-12, Series of 2012 and 05-14, Series of 2014.
45Espere v. NFD International Manning Agents, Inc., GR. No. 212098, July 26, 2017, 833 SCRA 156, 170; Seacrest Maritime Mgm't., Inc., et al. v. Picar, Jr., 755 Phil. 901, 907 (2015); Leonis Navigation Co., Inc. et al. v. Villamater and/or The Heirs of the late Catalino U. Villamater, 628 Phil. 81, 94 (2010).
46Seacrest Maritime Mgm't, Inc., et al. v. Picar, Jr., supra note 45.
47 Id. at 910
48Espere v. NFD International Manning Agents, Inc., supra note 45.
49 Id. at 169-170.
50Rollo, pp. 58-61.
51 Id. at 44-45.
52 Id. at 43.
53 Id. at 199-201.
54 CA rollo, p. 243.
55 Id. at 244.
56 Id. at 249-252.
57 Id. at 250.
58 Id. at 36.