FIRST DIVISION
[UDK-16259. April 1, 2019.]
DONALD C. GENSAYA, petitioner, vs.EXCEL QUALITY, INC., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 1, 2019which reads as follows:
"UDK-16259 (Donald C. Gensaya v. Excel Quality, Inc.) — The petitioner's motion for an extension of thirty (30) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.
After review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure of the petitioner to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its January 25, 2018 Decision 1 and July 23, 2018 Resolution, 2 as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
By way of distinction, while a writ of execution is not required when reinstatement is ordered by the Labor Arbiter (LA), it is necessary when reinstatement is ordered by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on appeal. 3 In the present case, the LA did not order petitioner's reinstatement; on appeal to the NLRC, however, the reinstatement of petitioner was ordered. Thus, there was a need for the issuance of a writ of execution of the NLRC decision. As correctly held by the NLRC and affirmed by the CA, the February 20, 2017 Order 4 of the LA was based on the erroneous belief that the reinstatement ordered in the September 6, 2010 ruling of the NLRC becomes immediately executory even absent a writ of execution. 5 Thus, the NLRC correctly nullified and set aside the assailed order.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The January 25, 2018 Decision and the July 23, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 152264 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."Jardeleza, J., on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 35-44; penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy, concurring.
2.Id. at 46-47.
3. See Mt. Carmel College v. Resuena, et al., 561 Phil. 620, 638 (2007).
4.Rollo, pp. 65-72.
5.Id. at 103.