Ocampo v. Carale
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, members of the Allied Bank Employees Union, filed a petition for mandamus to compel the NLRC Chairman to issue a writ of execution for the reinstatement aspect of a Labor Arbiter's decision. The case originated from an amended petition filed by Allied Banking Corporation charging the Union members with staging an illegal strike. The Union, in turn, alleged unfair labor practices, illegal dismissal, and violation of B.P. 130 by the bank. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter declared the strikes on January 3-4, 1985, and February 11-March 11, 1985, illegal for violating Article 263(g) of the Labor Code. Union officers who knowingly participated lost their employment status. However, the Labor Arbiter found no just cause for the termination of individual union members. While the bank reinstated individual members in compliance with a Supreme Court resolution, it subsequently dismissed 41 petitioners, including Rolando Ocampo, Rowena Rebosa, and Alfredo del Pilar, due to alleged lack of positions. The Labor Arbiter deemed this second dismissal illegal and ordered the bank to pay backwages and benefits, and to reinstate the 41 petitioners with backwages and benefits. A writ of execution for reinstatement was issued by the Labor Arbiter. The bank appealed to the NLRC and moved to quash the writ, which was denied. The bank then filed a petition for injunction and mandamus with the NLRC to restrain the implementation of the writ. Petitioners repeatedly requested the NLRC Chairman to issue a writ of execution for their reinstatement. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for mandamus with the Supreme Court to compel the NLRC Chairman to issue a writ of execution for their immediate reinstatement, arguing that his refusal constituted defiance of the rule of law.
Issue(s)
Whether a writ of mandamus lies to compel the NLRC Chairman to issue a writ of execution for reinstatement when a writ has already been issued by the Labor Arbiter and a motion to quash it is pending. Whether the proper remedy for non-implementation of a writ of execution is a petition for mandamus against the NLRC Chairman or a motion to cite the erring party for contempt.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The Supreme Court held that a writ of mandamus does not lie in this case. The Court ruled that the proper remedy for the non-implementation of the writ of execution is to cite the respondent bank for contempt before the NLRC, not to compel the NLRC Chairman to issue another writ of execution. Furthermore, the pendency of the bank's petition for injunction and mandamus with the NLRC made the recourse to the Supreme Court premature.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether a writ of mandamus lies to compel the NLRC Chairman to issue a writ of execution for reinstatement when a writ has already been issued by the Labor Arbiter and a motion to quash it is pending: The Court held that a writ of mandamus is not the proper remedy. Under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, mandamus may only issue when a tribunal or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act specifically enjoined by law, and there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. In this case, a writ of execution had already been issued by the Labor Arbiter, and the bank's motion to quash it was denied. Therefore, the NLRC Chairman was no longer duty-bound to issue another writ of execution. The petitioners' recourse to mandamus was based on a simplistic view that the Chairman's inaction was an open defiance of the rule of law, which the Court found untenable given the procedural developments. On whether the proper remedy for non-implementation of a writ of execution is a petition for mandamus against the NLRC Chairman or a motion to cite the erring party for contempt: The Court affirmed the Solicitor General's view that the petitioners should have instead moved to cite the respondent bank for contempt due to its disobedience or resistance to the writ of execution lawfully issued by the Labor Arbiter. Article 218(d) of the Labor Code empowers the NLRC to hold persons in contempt. A motion to cite for contempt is considered a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy intended to ensure the proper implementation of a writ of execution. The Court also noted that the bank had filed a petition for injunction and mandamus with the NLRC, and until that petition was acted upon, a recourse to the Supreme Court was premature.
Main Doctrine
A writ of mandamus will not lie to compel the NLRC Chairman to issue a writ of execution for reinstatement when a writ of execution has already been issued by the Labor Arbiter and a motion to quash it has been filed and is pending, as the proper remedy is to cite the erring party for contempt.