Ro-Ann Veterinary Manufacturing v. Bingbing
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Respondents Fernando A. Bingbing and Gilbert C. Villaseñor were employed as technical sales representatives by Ro-Ann Veterinary Manufacturing, Inc. (petitioner corporation). Their employment was terminated when the company issued advisories to clients stating they were no longer connected. Petitioners alleged the respondents were involved in unexplained withdrawals, failed to remit payments, and were moonlighting, leading to their cessation of work. Respondents contended the advisories constituted illegal dismissal without basis. After failed mediation attempts, respondents filed complaints for illegal dismissal and other monetary claims with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). 2. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of the respondents, finding them illegally dismissed and ordering the petitioner corporation to pay substantial monetary awards. The NLRC affirmed the LA's decision but deleted the award for one respondent. Upon reconsideration, the NLRC reinstated the original award. Petitioners then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing the NLRC's decision. While this petition was pending, the LA issued a Writ of Execution, which was enforced, leading to the satisfaction of the judgment award through garnishment and execution of a cash bond. Subsequently, the CA, noting the satisfaction of the award and a mediator's report, considered the petition for certiorari withdrawn and terminated the case. The CA denied the motion for reconsideration, leading to the present petition. 3. The Petition: Petitioners seek review of the CA's Resolutions dated July 14, 2017, and December 21, 2017, which dismissed their petition for certiorari as moot and academic due to the satisfaction of the judgment award. They argue that the payment was made solely in compliance with the Writ of Execution and not as a voluntary settlement, and therefore, the CA erred in not resolving their petition on the merits. The petition is filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, asserting that the CA committed a reversible error by considering the certiorari petition withdrawn without addressing the substantive issues of grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in ordering the withdrawal of the petition for certiorari due to the satisfaction of the judgment award in compliance with the Writ of Execution issued by the Labor Arbiter. Whether the payment of the judgment award by reason of the enforcement of the writ of execution prejudiced the petition for certiorari filed before the Court of Appeals.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The July 14, 2017 and December 21, 2017 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 144805 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is ordered REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for decision on the merits.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in ordering the withdrawal of the petition for certiorari due to the satisfaction of the judgment award in compliance with the Writ of Execution issued by the Labor Arbiter: The Supreme Court held that the petitioners' contentions are meritorious. It reiterated the well-entrenched rule that the proper mode of judicial review over decisions of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) is via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed before the Court of Appeals (CA). This remedy is a special original action focused on resolving the issue of whether a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Being a special original action, a petition for certiorari has an entirely different purpose from a regular appeal; the former is concerned with jurisdictional errors, while the latter reviews errors of judgment on the merits. The Court emphasized that a special civil action for certiorari and an appeal are "mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive," and a petition filed under Rule 65 cannot serve as a substitute for an appeal. Therefore, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an entirely independent action from the proceedings initiated with the court of origin; it is neither a part nor a continuation of the original suit. Accordingly, the proceedings before the NLRC, even upon reaching finality and even after execution, should not influence the petition for certiorari pending before the CA. The Court further cited Rule XI, Sections 1 to 4 of the 2011 Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, which underscore the legal precept that execution proceedings before the NLRC are not affected by a petition for certiorari duly filed with the CA, unless a restraining order is issued by the CA or Supreme Court. The Court also pointed to Sections 17 and 18 of Rule XI, which explicitly state that an executed judgment by the NLRC can be reversed or annulled by the CA, and provide for the effect of such reversal or annulment, including restitution. Applying these provisions, the Court has consistently ruled that the payment of a judgment award by virtue of the execution of a decision, resolution, or order of the NLRC is without prejudice to further recourse before the CA. The Court cited Seacrest Maritime Management, Inc. v. Picar, Jr. and Espere v. NFD International Manning Agents, Inc., which squarely apply to the case at bar, holding that the satisfaction of the monetary award by the employer does not render the petition for certiorari moot before the CA. The Court clarified that in the instant case, there was no showing that petitioners voluntarily agreed to the termination of the mediation proceedings before the CA, nor was there any voluntary settlement of the judgment award, as it was made in strict compliance with a duly issued writ of execution. Thus, the CA committed a palpable mistake when it considered the petition as withdrawn for being moot and academic. On the issue of whether the payment of the judgment award by reason of the enforcement of the writ of execution prejudiced the petition for certiorari filed before the Court of Appeals: The Supreme Court held that the petitioners' contentions are meritorious as the satisfaction of the monetary award by the employer does not render the petition for certiorari moot before the CA, as established in Seacrest Maritime Management, Inc. v. Picar, Jr. and Espere v. NFD International Manning Agents, Inc. The Court clarified that in the instant case, there was no showing that petitioners voluntarily agreed to the termination of the mediation proceedings before the CA, nor was there any voluntary settlement of the judgment award, as it was made in strict compliance with a duly issued writ of execution. Thus, the CA committed a palpable mistake when it considered the petition as withdrawn for being moot and academic.
Main Doctrine
The satisfaction of a monetary award by virtue of a writ of execution does not render a petition for certiorari pending before the Court of Appeals moot and academic, as the latter is a separate and independent action from the proceedings before the NLRC.