Dayonot v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Crisanto Dayonot filed an illegal dismissal case against his employer, Autographics Inc., and its officers Paul Y. Rodriguez and Eugene L. Topacio. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Dayonot, a decision that was affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and subsequently by the Supreme Court. After the decision became final and executory in 1991, writs of execution were issued to enforce the judgment. When the judgment was not fully satisfied, a third alias writ of execution was issued, leading to the levy of a parcel of land owned by the private respondents in Cebu City. 2. Procedural History: Following the levy of the property, Sheriff Leahmon Tolo issued a notice of sale for December 10, 1992. On that date, a Certificate of Auction Sale was issued to petitioner Dayonot, which was later acknowledged before a Notary Public on March 18, 1993. Petitioner then caused annotations on the property's certificate of title. In March 1994, petitioner sought a Certificate of Definite Deed of Sale, asserting the redemption period had lapsed. Private respondents countered with an Omnibus Motion to cancel the annotations and declare the judgment satisfied, arguing Sheriff Tolo was dismissed in January 1992 and his subsequent acts were void. The Labor Arbiter denied the respondents' motion and ordered the issuance of a Certificate of Sale to petitioner. The NLRC, however, set aside the Labor Arbiter's order and annulled the Certificate of Sale, finding Sheriff Tolo's actions void due to his prior dismissal. 3. The Petition: Petitioner Dayonot elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari. Initially denied for failure to submit proof of service, the petition was later reinstated upon reconsideration. However, the Supreme Court noted that the petition failed to state a material date—the date of filing the motion for reconsideration of the NLRC decision—as required by SC Circular No. 1-88, which is grounds for dismissal. Furthermore, the Court found that even if technicalities were disregarded, the petition would fail on the merits. The Court agreed with the NLRC that Sheriff Tolo's actions were void as he was no longer a sheriff at the time of the levy, auction sale, and issuance of the certificate of sale. The unrebutted allegation of Sheriff Tolo's absence and non-payment of salary in 1992 supported the conclusion that no valid auction sale occurred, rendering the Certificate of Sale and subsequent annotations invalid.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition should be dismissed on technical grounds for failure to state material dates. Whether the acts of Sheriff Leahmon Tolo, performed after his dismissal from service, are valid. Whether the Certificate of Auction Sale and subsequent annotations are valid.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The assailed Resolutions dated December 20, 1994 and February 13, 1995 of the NLRC are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the procedural technicality: The petition must fail due to petitioner's failure to comply with Supreme Court Circular No. 1-88, specifically requirement No. 4, which mandates a verified statement of material dates, including the date of receipt of notice of the judgment, the filing of a motion for reconsideration, and the notice of denial. Petitioner's omission of the date when he filed a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC decision is a ground for outright dismissal. Furthermore, the records reveal that the NLRC decision had become final and executory on March 6, 1995, and petitioner failed to address this issue in his pleadings, particularly his Reply, which is intended to respond to matters raised in the Comment. On the validity of Sheriff Tolo's acts: Even disregarding technicalities, the resolution on the merits does not favor the petitioner. It is undisputed that at the time of the notice of levy, the alleged auction sale, and the issuance and notarization of the certificate of sale, Sheriff Tolo was no longer holding the office of Sheriff. The NLRC observed that the complainant (petitioner) did not refute the allegation that Sheriff Tolo had not been reporting to office since 1992 and had not been paid his salary as of May 1992. Following the ruling in Manila Bay Club Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et. al., the failure to rebut an allegation that would naturally invite immediate and stiff opposition creates an adverse inference that the uncontroverted evidence speaks the truth. Thus, the unrebutted allegation of Sheriff Tolo's absence in 1992 is considered proof of the absence of a valid auction sale conducted by him. On the validity of the Certificate of Auction Sale: Given that Sheriff Tolo was no longer in office at the time of the purported auction sale, there is every good reason to suspect that no actual public auction was conducted on December 10, 1992. Without a public auction sale actually conducted, there can be no basis for the issuance of the Certificate of Sale. Consequently, the registration of such a false Certificate of Sale would have no valid and legal effect and would not toll the prescriptive period for redemption of the property. Therefore, the NLRC correctly annulled the Certificate of Sale.
Main Doctrine
Acts performed by a sheriff who has already been dismissed from service are void and without effect, rendering any subsequent sale or issuance of a certificate of sale invalid.