Bongay v. Martinez
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioners Celso Bongay, Avelino Quibe, and Jose Madridenos filed a complaint against Galmar Agri-Products, Inc. and/or Solomon and Leopoldo Hong for illegal dismissal, non-payment of emergency cost of living allowance (ECOLA), holiday pay, overtime pay, incentive leave pay, damages, and attorney's fees. A decision was rendered on October 10, 1985, by Labor Arbiter Joaquin Tanodra, ordering the reinstatement of the petitioners with full backwages from the date of dismissal until actual reinstatement, but denying other monetary claims due to lack of satisfactory evidence. 2. Procedural History: The decision of October 10, 1985, became final and executory as the private respondents did not appeal within the reglementary period. Petitioners sought execution, and after an initial computation and opposition by the private respondents, a second computation confirmed the award of P43,171.02 to each petitioner, totaling P129,513.06. A writ of execution was issued on August 29, 1986. The private respondents filed a motion to quash the writ, which was initially granted but later denied and vacated. Subsequently, the private respondents filed a memorandum on appeal from the original decision and the order denying their motion to quash, and simultaneously filed an urgent ex-parte motion to stay execution. 3. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for mandamus and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, challenging the legality of the October 23, 1986 order by Labor Arbiter Conchita J. Martinez, which stayed the execution of the final and executory decision. They argue that the private respondents' appeal was filed out of time and that Labor Arbiter Martinez gravely abused her discretion in applying Section 2, Rule IX of the old NLRC Rules to stay execution, as the decision had long become final and executory. They pray for prohibition against the enforcement of the questioned order and for mandamus to compel the immediate effectuation of the writ of execution.
Issue(s)
Whether the appeal interposed by the private respondents to the NLRC was seasonably filed. Whether respondent Labor Arbiter Conchita J. Martinez erred and gravely abused her discretion in applying Section 2, Rule IX of the old Rules of the NLRC by staying the execution of the decision.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Order dated October 23, 1986, issued by Labor Arbiter and Officer-In-Charge Conchita J. Martinez is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The National Labor Relations Commission is ordered to DISMISS the appeal filed by the private respondents in NLRC Case No. 1151-LR-XI-83. The immediate execution of the Decision of Labor Arbiter Joaquin A. Tanodra, dated October 10, 1985, is hereby ORDERED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the appeal was seasonably filed: The Court ruled that the private respondents' appeal was filed out of time. The decision rendered on October 10, 1985, had long become final and executory because the private respondents failed to appeal within the ten-day reglementary period provided by law. The ten-day period for appeal is strictly ten calendar days, and the private respondents failed to show they complied with this period. Their argument of excusable negligence due to their counsel's secretary's alleged failure to inform them of the receipt of the decision was not considered sufficient to justify the delay. Furthermore, their opposition to the first computation, instead of an outright appeal from the decision, could be deemed a waiver of their right to appeal. The subsequent payment of appeal fees did not cure this defect. The contention that only the Commission can determine the timeliness of an appeal was also rejected, as Section 5, Rule IX of the NLRC Rules empowers Labor Arbiters to impose penalties for frivolous appeals, implying they can also determine the frivolous nature of an appeal at their level. The Court noted that the private respondents' actions appeared to be a belated attempt to thwart the implementation of a valid writ of execution, especially since they did not oppose the second computation of the award. Therefore, the appeal was deemed patently dilatory and intended only to delay justice. On the issue of whether Labor Arbiter Martinez gravely abused her discretion in staying execution: Labor Arbiter Martinez committed grave abuse of discretion in applying Section 2, Rule IX of the old NLRC Rules. The applicable provision should have been Section 1, Rule XIII, which enjoins a Labor Arbiter to issue a writ of execution for a final and executory decision, not Section 2, Rule IX, which pertains to stays of execution pending appeal. The issuance of a writ of execution for a final and executory decision is a ministerial duty of the Labor Arbiter.
Main Doctrine
A Labor Arbiter commits grave abuse of discretion in staying the execution of a final and executory decision based on an appeal that was filed out of time, as the issuance of a writ of execution for a final decision is a ministerial duty.