Bacos v. Arcega
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Domingo Arcega filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and other monetary claims against Viabel International Garments, Inc. (Viabel) and/or Marlon Viado. The Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision in favor of Arcega, ordering Viabel and/or Viado to pay backwages, separation pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, and attorney's fees. The decision became final and executory due to the failure of Viabel and/or Viado to appeal. Procedural History: A writ of execution was issued, and the sheriff levied twenty-eight sewing machines belonging to Viabel and/or Marlon Viado. Ma. Fe Bacos filed a third-party claim, alleging she purchased the machines from Marlon Viado prior to the levy, as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale. Arcega opposed the claim, deeming it frivolous and spurious. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the third-party claim, finding the Deed of Absolute Sale spurious. The NLRC affirmed this dismissal. The Court of Appeals also dismissed Bacos' petition for certiorari, finding that she failed to substantiate her claim and that the Deed of Absolute Sale was spurious, noting the absence of its copy in the Clerk of Court's notarial report as a badge of fraud. The Petition: Bacos filed a petition for review on certiorari, contending that Section 16, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure merely requires an affidavit of title, not the production of the title itself.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by Ma. Fe Bacos, and whether a third-party claimant is required to present more than just an affidavit of title to substantiate their claim over levied properties.
Ruling
The petition lacks merit. The Supreme Court denies the petition and affirms the challenged Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 64177.
Ratio Decidendi
On the requirement for substantiating a third-party claim: Section 16, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, requires a third-party claimant to make an affidavit of their title or right to possession, stating the grounds for such right or title. Corollarily, Sections 2 and 3, Rule VI of the NLRC Manual of Instructions for Sheriffs mandate that the Labor Arbiter or proper officer shall conduct a hearing to resolve the validity of the claim if it is found to be without factual or legal basis. This implies that a mere affidavit is insufficient; the circumstances supporting the claimant's ownership or possession must be specified. The Court noted that in this case, both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC found the Deed of Absolute Sale to be spurious, and the Court of Appeals found that no copy of the deed was on file with the Clerk of Court. The appellate court aptly held that the absence of such a document is a "badge of fraud and simulation" that militates against its use as a basis for the petitioner's claim. The factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are accorded high respect by the Supreme Court, which is not a trier of facts. Therefore, the petitioner failed to substantiate her claim over the levied sewing machines.
Main Doctrine
A third-party claim must be supported by an affidavit stating the claimant's title to, or right to possession of the property, and the grounds therefor. A mere affidavit will not suffice; the circumstances supporting the third-party claimant's ownership or possession of the levied properties must be specified. The absence of a copy of the deed of sale in the Clerk of Court's notarial report is a badge of fraud and simulation.