SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 234479. November 29, 2017.]
SHERMAN SEMILLA y SAGUID AND SHERIDAN SEMILLA y SAGUID, petitioners,vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PINAMALAYAN, ORIENTAL MINDORO, BRANCH 41, AND PERLITA GUTIERREZ, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated29 November 2017which reads as follows: ISCDEA
"G.R. No. 234479 (Sherman Semilla y Saguid and Sheridan Semilla y Saguid v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, the Regional Trial Court of Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro, Branch 41, and Perlita Gutierrez)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the January 23, 2017 Decision 1 and September 7, 2017 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 145854 for failure of petitioners Sherman Semilla y Saguid and Sheridan Semilla y Saguid (petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in nullifying and setting aside the April 26, 2016 Resolution of the Regional Trial Court of Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro, Branch 41 (RTC) for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion.
The broad powers granted to the Labor Arbiter and to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) by Articles 217, 218, and 224 of the Labor Code can only be interpreted as vesting in them jurisdiction over incidents arising from, in connection with or relating to labor disputes, as the controversy under consideration, to the exclusion of the regular courts. 3 Further, Article 254 of the Labor Code provides that 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, subject to exceptions which do not obtain in this case. As the CA correctly ruled, the instant case arose from an illegal dismissal case and the subject matter of petitioners' complaint is the execution of the NLRC Decision. As such, the RTC is bereft of jurisdiction over the same and accordingly, gravely abused its discretion in granting petitioners' motion to preserve/maintain status quo.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 25-42. Penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales with Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Rodil V. Zalameda concurring.
2.Id. at 13-14.
3.Ando v. Campo, 658 Phil. 636, 644 (2011), citing Delta Ventures Resources, Inc. v. Hon. Cabato, 384 Phil. 252, 260 (2000).