FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 210137. January 12, 2021.]
ALPHA METAL WORKS1AND DESIGN TREND 2000 CORPORATION, 2petitioners,vs. T&H GIN QUEEN LABOR UNION, T&H SHOPFITTERS CORP. & GIN QUEEN CORP., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated January 12, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 210137 (Alpha Metal Works and Design Trend 2000 Corporation, Petitioners, v. T&H Gin Queen Labor Union, T&H Shopfitters Corp. & Gin Queen Corp., Respondents). — This petition for review on certiorari3 seeks to reverse and set aside the Resolutions dated 30 January 2013 4 and 10 June 2013 5 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 126872, outrightly dismissing the petition for certiorari for petitioners' failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the Resolution 6 dated 04 October 2012 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), among others.
Antecedents
On 31 January 2006, the Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a Decision ordering T&H Shopfitters Corp. and Gin Queen Corp. (corporations) to reinstate members of the T&H Gin Queen Labor Union (complainants) without loss of seniority rights and other benefits, and to pay them their backwages. Consequently, the corporations, as well as Stinnes Huang and Ben Huang (the Huangs), filed their respective appeals with the NLRC. Their appeals were later dismissed. The motion for reconsideration was likewise denied in a Resolution dated 28 February 2007. On 11 April 2007, the NLRC issued an Entry of Judgment. 7 Thereafter, the LA issued an Order on 03 September 2009 approving the report of the Fiscal Examiner and directing the issuance of a writ of execution.
The corporations and the Huangs appealed to the NLRC, which was dismissed in a Resolution dated 27 January 2010. Their motion for reconsideration was likewise denied in a Resolution dated 24 May 2010. Consequently, the same became final and executory on 03 July 2010, per the Entry of Judgment issued on 10 August 2010. Thus, the writ of execution was issued on 27 September 2010. 8
On 08 March 2011, the total amount of Php1,115,654.30 was released to the complainants. Subsequently, an Alias Writ of Execution was issued on 25 May 2011 for the release of the remaining balance amounting to Php3,158,620.46, but the same was returned expired and unsatisfied. 9 Hence, the issuance of a 2nd Alias Writ of Execution 10 on 27 April 2012. On 20 June 2012, a sheriff of the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch No. III, City of San Fernando, Pampanga (NLRC-RAB III) issued a constructive levy by posting a Notice of Levy and Notice of Sale on Execution of Personal Property 11 (notice of sale) on the premises of the corporations. The auction sale was held on 26 June 2012. 12
Three (3) days later, or on 29 June 2012, Alpha Metal Works and Design Trend 2000 Corporation (collectively, petitioners) filed third party claims 13 without paying docket fees and without posting the necessary bond. 14 Petitioners alleged that on 20 June 2012, sheriffs from the NLRC-RAB III went to the compound where their respective offices and factories were located and levied upon their properties, mistaking the same as properties belonging to the corporation. They averred that the corporations moved out of the said compound in 2005. 15 It was only on 11 July 2012 that petitioners paid docket fees in the amount of Php7,000.00 each and posted cash bonds in the total amount of Php650,000.00 corresponding to the alleged value of the properties they claimed to be theirs. 16
Ruling of the LA
On 12 July 2012, the LA issued an Order 17 denying the third party claims for failing to comply with the requirements under Section 11, Rule XI of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure (NLRC Rules), which states:
SECTION 11. Third Party Claim. — a) If the property levied is claimed by any person other than the losing party, such person may file a third party claim not later than five (5) days from the last day of posting or publication of the notice of execution sale, otherwise the claim shall be forever barred. Such third party claim must comply with the following requirements:
(1) An affidavit stating title to property or right to the possession thereof with supporting evidence;
(2) Posting of a bond equivalent to the amount of the claim or judgment award, whichever is lower; and
(3) Payment of prevailing filing fee.
The LA noted that since the Notice of Auction Sale was posted on 20 June 2012, the period within which to file a third party claim ended on 25 June 2012. Thus, petitioners' filed their third party claims beyond the reglementary period. Moreover, the auction sale was conducted on 26 June 2012; hence, the sale of the claimed properties was an operative fact, a fait accompli. 18
Aggrieved, petitioners filed an urgent verified petition memorandum with prayer for issuance of temporary restraining order and permanent injunction 19 with the NLRC.
Ruling of the NLRC
In its Order 20 dated 31 July 2012, the NLRC denied the petition for being a mere photocopy. Further, the verification and the signatures by one Riza D. Calabia were also photocopies. 21
Dissatisfied with the ruling of the NLRC, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, 22 which the NLRC granted in its second Order 23 dated 07 September 2012. A temporary restraining order was issued and the case was set for hearing in order to determine whether or not a writ of preliminary injunction should be granted. 24
On 04 October 2012, the NLRC rendered its Resolution 25 denying the prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. The NLRC explained that since the auction sale had been consummated, an injunction will no longer lie. 26
Petitioners, thereafter, sought recourse to the CA by filing a petition for certiorari. 27
Ruling of the CA
In its Resolution 28 dated 30 January 2013, the CA dismissed the petition for the following reasons:
(a) petitioners failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC resolution that they sought to be set aside;
(b) what petitioners were principally or mainly seeking was the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against respondents when there is no main or principal action for preliminary injunction; and
(c) the petition seemed to no longer present a justiciable controversy because the issue involved had already become moot and academic. Considering that the auction sale of petitioners' properties had already been consummated, an injunction will no longer lie. 29
Petitioners subsequently moved for reconsideration, 30 but the CA denied the motion in its Resolution 31 dated 10 June 2013. Hence, the filing of the instant petition before this Court.
Issues
In the case at bar, the Court is tasked to determine whether or not the CA contravened law and jurisprudence when it (1) did not uphold the exemptions to the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies, and (2) did not rule that, if the disputed property did not belong to the judgment debtor, then it could not be validly levied and executed upon by the sheriff for the satisfaction of a judgment.
Ruling of the Court
The petition is bereft of merit.
The filing of a motion for
Anent the non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, it is well-settled that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non to the institution of a special civil action for certiorari, subject to well-recognized exceptions. 32 Petitioners failed to show that this case falls under any of these exceptions. In fact, they not only failed to file a motion for reconsideration before the NLRC, they also failed to show sufficient justification for such failure. It was only in their motion for reconsideration before the CA that petitioners explained that they did not move for reconsideration because "to have waited further would have rendered [their] rights futile and inutile." 33
However, it is not for petitioners to determine that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is unnecessary. 34 As held in Sim v. National Labor Relations Commission: 35
It must be emphasized that a writ of certiorari is a prerogative writ, never demandable as a matter of right, never issued except in the exercise of judicial discretion. Hence, he who seeks a writ of certiorari must apply for it only in the manner and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the law and the Rules. Petitioner may not arrogate to himself the determination of whether a motion for reconsideration is necessary or not. To dispense with the requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration, petitioner must show a concrete, compelling, and valid reason for doing so, which petitioner failed to do. Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition.
x x x [t]he filing of a motion for reconsideration and filing it on time are not mere technicalities of procedure. These are jurisdictional and mandatory requirements with which petitioners must strictly complied with. Thus, failure to file a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC before availing oneself of the special civil action for certiorari is a fatal infirmity. 36
Petitioners failed to comply with
Petitioners contend that since they are neither parties nor privy to the labor case their properties should not have been levied upon and sold on execution for the accountability of another.
Indeed, the power of the court in executing judgments extends only to properties unquestionably belonging to the judgment debtor alone. To be sure, one man's goods shall not be sold for another man's debts. A sheriff is not authorized to attach or levy on property not belonging to the judgment debtor, and even incurs liability if he wrongfully levies upon the property of a third person. 37 However, note is taken that petitioners knew of the impending auction sale on 26 June 2012, as sheriffs from the NLRC-RAB III went to their corporations' premises on 20 June 2012 to post a notice of sale. Yet, they only filed their third party claims on 29 June 2012 without any clear explanation for the delay.
Section 11, Rule XI of the NLRC Rules enunciates that a third party claim must be filed not later than five (5) days from the last day of posting or publication of the notice of execution sale, otherwise the claim shall be forever barred. In the instant case, petitioners' third party claim was clearly filed beyond the allowed period, and therefore, following the aforecited rule, must be disallowed.
Moreover, late filing is not petitioners' sole error. Petitioners likewise failed to pay the required docket fees and post the necessary bond on the day they filed their third party claims. As shown by the records, petitioners paid the docket fees and posted cash bonds on 11 July 2012, or twelve (12) days after filing the third party claims. Further, the third party claims were not accompanied by any evidence of proof of ownership or right of possession. 38 The Court can make no other conclusion but that petitioners' third party claim is forever barred.
On the basis of the foregoing, this Court no longer finds it necessary to resolve the other issues raised by the petitioners. There was sufficient justification for the LA to deny the third party claims and for the CA to dismiss the petition for certiorari.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the Resolutions dated 30 January 2013 and 10 June 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 126872 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Alpa Metal Works, in some parts of the record.
2. Design Trend 2000 Corp., in some parts of the record.
3.Rollo, pp. 03-18.
4.Id. at 179-181; penned by CA Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican and concurred in by Associate Justices Michael P. Elbinias and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela of the Court of Appeals, Manila.
5.Id. at 186-188.
6.Id. at 142-143.
7.Id. at 20-21.
8.Id. at 22.
9.Id. at 23.
10.Id. at 20-24.
11.Id. at 25.
12.Id. at 49.
13.Id. at 26-28 and 29-31.
14.Id. at 50.
15.Id. at 27 and 29-30.
16.Id. at 32, 34, and 50.
17.Id. at 46-52.
18.Id. at 51.
19.Id. at 62-67.
20.Id. at 100-101; penned by NLRC Commissioner Mercedes R. Posada-Lacap and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Leonardo L. Leonida and Commissioner Dolores M. Peralta-Beley.
21.Id.
22.Id. at 68-73.
23.Id. at 94-98.
24.Id. at 96-97.
25.Id. at 142-143.
26.Id. at 142.
27.Id. at 144-159.
28.Id. at 179-181.
29.Id. at 180.
30.Id. at 182-184.
31.Id. at 186-188.
32.Seagull Shipmanagement & Transport, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 123619, 08 June 2000, 388 Phil. 906 (2000) [Per J. Quisumbing].
33.Rollo, pp. 07 and 183.
34.Republic v. Pantranco North Express, Inc., G.R. No. 178593 (Resolution), 15 February 2012, 682 Phil. 186 (2012) [Per J. Villarama, Jr.].
35. G.R. No. 157376, 02 October 2007, 560 Phil. 762 (2007) [Per J. Austria-Martinez].
36.Supra at note 34.
37.Pantranco Employees Association v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. Nos. 170689 & 170705, 17 March 2009, 600 Phil. 645 (2009) [Per J. Nachura].
38.Rollo, pp. 51-52.