CIO-ALU v. CA

 Doctrine: The process of reviewing decisions of the labor tribunals has been settled with clarity in the leading case of St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC, 295 SCRA 494 (1998), where the SC held that review of NLRC’s decisions must be made before the CA by petition for certiorari under Rule 65; and then before the SC by petition for review under Rule 45, for the special civil action of certiorari is a distinct remedy from, and not a substitute for, appeal by certiorari under Rule 45. 

Facts: CIO-ALU is among the complainants in three cases against San Carlos Milling Company, Inc. (SCMCI) for unpaid wage increases, 13th month pay, differential pay, holiday pay, and separation pay. All three cases were eventually decided in favor of the SCMCI workers. This case arose during the consolidated proceedings for the execution of the aforesaid judgments. It all started from the Notice of Levy dated February 9, 2006 issued by Sheriff Paredes, advising the authorized representative or agents of SCMCI that he has to attach properties found inside the premises of SCMCI.

MBTC filed a Third-Party Claim, alleging, inter alia, that it is the owner of the properties to be levied pursuant to a certificate of sale issued to it after the public auction sale of the real and personal properties of SCMCI. Executive Labor Arbiter Acosta issued an Order approving MBTC’s Third Party Claim. CIO-ALU, subsequently, filed an ex parte motion to post indemnity bond which was granted by ELA Acosta in an Order dated June 9, 2006.

Pursuant to the June 2006 Acosta Order, Sheriff Paredes issued a Notice of Sale of Properties. On July 4, 2006, MBTC, without waiving its right to question the Notice of Sale issued by Sheriff Paredes, moved to quash the Writ of Execution and to cite Sheriff Paredes in contempt. In the mean time, CIO-ALU filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration against the June 2006 Acosta Order, which was granted.

MBTC filed a Notice of Appeal/Appeal Memorandum questioning the July 2006 Acosta Order. Nevertheless, Sheriff Paredes proceeded with the levy and auction of the items listed in the Notice of Sale, with CIO-ALU emerging as the highest bidder. ELA Acosta issued a Break Open Order commanding the NLRC Sheriff to proceed to the premises of SCMCI and satisfy the judgments awards in favor of the SCMCI workers. The Sheriff garnished and auctioned some of the properties of SCMCI. Aggrieved, MBTC filed a petition for injunction with prayer for TRO with the NLRC’s 4th Division. NLRC issued a TRO enjoining ELA Acosta, Sheriff Paredes and any person acting under their authority, as well as CIO-ALU and the SCMCI workers, from executing in whole or in part upon the properties subject of MBTC’s third-party claim. 

NLRC rendered a Decision giving due course to MBTC’s petition for injunction and invalidating the July 2006 Acosta Order. CIO-ALU sought reconsideration which was denied.

NLRC issued a Resolution denying MBTC’s motion for reconsideration. CIO-ALU, then, filed a motion to implement the October 2006 NLRC’s Resolution. Sheriff Paredes resumed the execution of the judgment award and took the properties covered by the Certificate of Sale issued to MBTC. To protect its rights and interests, MBTC instituted a complaint fo rreconveyance and recovery of personal properties with damages against CIO-ALU and Sheriff Paredes. RTC issued an Order enjoining CIO-ALU and the Sheriff of the NLRC from conducting further execution on all the properties located in the SCMCI compound/plant, effective upon MBTC’s filing of a bond.

MBTC filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. CA ruled in favor of MBTC. CIO-ALU filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.

Issues: Whether or not the CA gravely abused its judicial discretion in granting and declaring the MBTC’s petition for certiorari and prohibition to be meritorious notwithstanding the admissions of the MBTC which refute the MBTC’s third-party claim and whether or not the CA gravely abused its discretion by relying on the technicalities and disregarding substantive law.

Held: The petition should be dismissed. Prefatorily, it must be noted that while the petition filed by CIO-ALU with the Court was denominated as a “Petition for Review on Certiorari” presumably under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, its contents betray its actual nature as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The caption of the petition reads: “For: CERTIORARI under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure.” 

Certiorari is not the proper remedy from a decision of the CA in a labor proceeding. The process of reviewing decisions of the labor tribunals has been settled with clarity in the leading case of St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC, where the Court held that review of NLRC’s decisions must be made before the CA by petition for certiorari under Rule 65; and then before this Court by petition for review under Rule 45, for the special civil action of certiorari is a distinct remedy from, and not a substitute for, appeal by certiorari under Rule 45. Even if We exercise our judicial discretion and consider the petition as one for review on certiorari under Rule 45, We would still be constrained to deny the petition for being filed out of time. CIO-ALU received the assailed CA’s resolution on October 18, 2012; thus, it had 15 days from that date, or until November 2, 2012, to file the petition. However, the petition was filed only on December 28, 2012 — almost two months after the reglementary period under the Rules of Court had lapsed. 

A completed levy does not automatically mean that the judgment has already been satisfied. It has been held that mere levy on property of sufficient value to cover the judgment award does not operate as a satisfaction of the judgment, but merely as a prima facie evidence or a presumption of satisfaction. Under the Rules of Court, which applies suppletorily to the NLRC’s Execution Manual, a levy only creates a lien over the property in favor of the judgment obligee. In order to afford full satisfaction of the judgment from the levied property, an execution sale must be conducted, and the proceeds therefrom be used to satisfy the judgment debt. Therefore, a money judgment is satisfied only upon payment of the judgment award or the issuance of a certificate of sale in favor of the judgment creditor after the conduct of an execution sale.