THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 177017. November 20, 2013.]
ORIENTAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated November 20, 2013, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 177017 (Oriental Assurance Corporation v. Court of Appeals, et al.). — On September 2, 1996 respondent security guards, 31 in all, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims against Longest Force Investigation and Security Agency, Inc. (Longest Force) and Mariveles Shipyard Corporation (MSC) at whose premises the guards were assigned. 1 The Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision in favor of the security guards, holding Longest Force and MSC jointly and severally liable for the payment of their money claims representing underpayment of wages, overtime pay, full backwages, and attorney's fees.
Both Longest Force and Mariveles appealed the decision to the NLRC and, in compliance with requirements, posted a supersedeas bond that petitioner Oriental Assurance Corporation (Oriental) issued on July 16, 1998. The case went up the appeals ladder and reached this Court, resulting in the eventual affirmance of the Labor Arbiter's Decision with modification as to the amounts to which the security guards were entitled. 2 The Court's Decision became final and executory on March 19, 2004. TcADCI
Acting on respondent security guards' motion for execution of judgment, the Labor Arbiter set a pre-execution conference but, despite notice, neither Longest Force nor MSC showed up. Thus, on January 26, 2006 the Labor Arbiter issued a writ of execution ordering the sheriff of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) to proceed against Longest Force and MSC.
In implementing the writ, the sheriff issued a notice of garnishment to Oriental for P2,970,686.24, the amount of its bond, plus the corresponding execution fee. But Oriental wrote the sheriff a letter, stating that the bond was valid for only one year, having expired on July 16, 1999 when the premiums for its renewal were not paid. Oriental also filed a motion to quash the notice of garnishment, raising the non-payment of the premiums as a defense. Further, it alleged as fatal a) the failure to include Oriental in the pre-execution conference and b) the lack of prior call on the bond.
On March 22, 2006 the Labor Arbiter denied Oriental's motion and ordered it to release the amount of the bond to satisfy the judgment for underpayment of wages, overtime pay, and attorney's fee, totaling P2,970,686.74. Oriental elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) by special civil action of certiorari and prohibition, 3 alleging grave abuse of discretion in the Labor Arbiter's issuance of the March 22, 2006 Order and notice of garnishment.
The CA held that, since the Order of the Labor Arbiter denying the motion to quash was in the nature of a final order, the same was appealable to the NLRC. Thus the CA dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. It also denied Oriental's motion for reconsideration, prompting Oriental to seek relief from this Court. IDSaTE
Contrary to the CA's ruling, the remedy of appeal to the NLRC was not available to Oriental. Since the latter is not a party to the labor case, it did not have the personality to appeal the Labor Arbiter's Order to the NLRC. 4 Besides, the questioned order was interlocutory. The rules of the NLRC specifically prohibit appeals from the interlocutory orders of a labor arbiter. 5
An interlocutory order is one which deals with incidental matters and does not resolve the actual merits of the case. 6 The March 22, 2006 Order denying the motion to quash the notice of garnishment is merely an incident of the main labor case. While the CA held that there was nothing more left for the tribunal to do except to execute the judgment, this is only because the merits of the case had been previously ruled upon by this Court. It is not because the questioned order itself was in the nature of a final judgment or order.
Still, rather than have this case remanded to the CA for resolution of Oriental's petition on its merits and further delay its disposition, the Court would rather address the substantive points raised especially since the records of the case before the CA had already been sent to this Court. 7
Oriental alleges that the Labor Arbiter should have given it notice of the pre-execution conference to enable it to take part in threshing out the matters relevant to execution. It adds, moreover, that due process requires a motion or a call on the bond before Oriental can be made liable as surety. Absent such notice, Oriental's right to due process is compromised.
But in applying the principle of due process in administrative proceedings, what is important is not prior notice, but the opportunity to be heard. 8 Oriental had that opportunity when the Labor Arbiter heard and resolved its motion to quash the garnishment notice and the security guards' motion to have the amount of the bond released to them.
Oriental claims that its bond already expired a year after its issuance due to non-payment of the renewal premiums. It argues that, pursuant to Section 77 of the Insurance Code, premiums must first be paid before a policy can become valid and binding. But the Court has already settled this point when it rules that non-payment of premiums on an appeal bond in labor cases is not a valid defense on the part of the surety that issued it. It is understood that the bond remains valid and in force until the execution of judgment. Otherwise, employers could evade their liabilities by simply foregoing payment of the renewal premiums due on their surety bonds. 9 aTICAc
One small concern: the Court notes that while the portion of the judgment in favor of respondent security guards amounts to P2,970,686.74, the supersedeas bond that Oriental issued and the notice of garnishment issued against placed the amount at P2,970,686.24 (a discrepancy of 50 centavos). Thus, the order of the Labor Arbiter should be modified to reflect the amount covered by the bond without prejudice to the full satisfaction of the award.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the Order of the Labor Arbiter in NLRC-NCR Case 00-09-05440-96-A dated March 22, 2006 with the MODIFICATION that the petitioner Oriental Assurance Corporation is directed to release the sum of P2,970,686.24 in partial satisfaction of the portion of the judgment award totaling P2,970,686.74. (Mendoza, J., no part; Leonardo-de Castro, J., Additional Member, per Raffle dated November 18, 2013.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Docketed as NLRC-NCR Case 00-09-05440-96-A.
2. Mariveles Shipyard Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 461 Phil. 249 (2003).
3. Docketed as CA-G.R. SP 94433.
4. Okada v. Security Pacific Assurance Corporation, G.R. No. 164344, December 23, 2008, 575 SCRA 124, 141.
5. The 2005 Revised Rules of Procedures of the National Labor Relations Commission, Rule III, Section 4 (g).
6. Republic v. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division), G.R. No. 152375, December 13, 2011, 662 SCRA 152, 177.
7. G.R. No. 168715.
8. STI Drivers Association v. Court of Appeals, 441 Phil. 166, 174.
9. AFP General Insurance Corporation v. Molina, 579 Phil. 114, 124 (2008).