Diaz v. Nora
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Edward Diaz filed a complaint for illegal suspension and damages against Meralco Transit Organization, Inc. before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). After proceedings, a Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on April 28, 1989, ordering the respondent to reinstate the complainant with full backwages and other monetary awards, totaling P32,083.20, within ten days. 2. Procedural History: The private respondent received the decision on May 15, 1989, and filed a timely appeal to the NLRC on May 25, 1989. Subsequently, on May 29, 1989, the petitioner filed a motion for execution with the Labor Arbiter, asserting that the appeal was not perfected due to the failure to post the required bond under Republic Act No. 6715. The Labor Arbiter did not act on the motion but forwarded the records to the NLRC, where the appeal was pending. 3. The Petition: This petition for mandamus seeks to compel the public respondents (Labor Arbiter and NLRC) to issue a writ of execution. The petitioner argues that the decision became final and executory due to the private respondent's failure to post a bond, rendering the appeal improper and making the issuance of execution a ministerial duty. The petitioner contends that the Labor Arbiter unlawfully neglected his duty by not acting on the motion for execution, and the NLRC unlawfully excluded the petitioner from his right to execution by entertaining an improperly perfected appeal. The Court found that the petitioner had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by filing a motion to dismiss the appeal with the NLRC before resorting to a petition for mandamus.
Issue(s)
Did the decision rendered by the respondent Labor Arbiter become final and executory when the private respondent failed to post a bond to perfect its appeal? Does the respondent Labor Arbiter have any discretion to refuse to resolve petitioner's Motion for Execution and to elevate the records of the case on appeal to respondent NLRC when his Decision has already become final and executory? Is it discretionary for respondent NLRC to treat a case as if an appeal has been perfected when the Decision appealed from involves a monetary award and the employer has not posted any bond? Also, was the petition for mandamus prematurely filed, considering the availability of other remedies?
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law which he failed to avail himself of before coming to the Court. The petition is therefore premature.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the decision became final and executory due to failure to post a bond: The Court acknowledged that under Section 12 of Republic Act No. 6715, an appeal involving a monetary award requires the posting of a bond. However, the Court did not definitively rule on whether the appeal was perfected or not in this instance. Instead, it focused on the procedural steps the petitioner should have taken. On the issue of the Labor Arbiter's discretion and the NLRC's jurisdiction, the NLRC's discretion to treat a case as appealed without a bond, the availability of other remedies, and the petition's prematurity: The Court found that the petitioner had not demonstrated that the respondents unlawfully neglected a duty or unlawfully excluded him from a right. The Labor Arbiter did not deny the motion for execution but merely did not act on it, and the petitioner did not urge its immediate resolution. Furthermore, the NLRC was not given an opportunity to pass upon the question of its jurisdiction over the appeal. The Court emphasized that the NLRC has the authority to dismiss an appeal if it is not duly perfected. The proper procedural step for the petitioner was to file a motion to dismiss the appeal with the respondent NLRC, alleging that the decision had become final and executory. The Court clarified that it is not true that the NLRC has no jurisdiction to act on the case at all; it has the authority to dismiss the appeal if it is shown that it was not duly perfected. The petition for mandamus should only be filed if the NLRC denies such a motion and the denial appears to be unlawful. The Court found that the petitioner had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by filing a motion to dismiss the appeal with the NLRC. By failing to pursue this remedy before filing the petition for mandamus, the petitioner rendered his petition premature. The Court reiterated that mandamus lies only when there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Based on the failure to exhaust available administrative remedies, the Supreme Court concluded that the petition for mandamus was prematurely filed. The respondents were not shown to have unlawfully neglected their duties or unlawfully excluded the petitioner from his rights, as the petitioner had not yet exhausted the proper procedural avenues available to him.
Main Doctrine
A petition for mandamus to compel the issuance of a writ of execution is premature if the petitioner has not first availed of the remedy of filing a motion to dismiss the appeal with the appellate court, alleging that the decision has become final and executory due to the failure to perfect the appeal.