ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
BAR REVIEWER ON LABOR LAW 2014 (2nd) Edition - By Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan

Chan Robles Virtual Law Library






[G.R. No. 145501. June 27, 2001]




Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 27 2001.

G.R. No. 145501 (Hanjin Engineering & Construction Company, Inc. vs. Honorable Court of Appeals, National Labor Relations Commission, Labor Arbiter Manuel R. Asuncion, Edgardo De La Cruz & Crispin Martinez.)

This is a Petition for Certiorari from the Resolution 1 Rollo, 30.of the Court of Appeals 2 Fifteenth Division composed of the ponente, J. Edgardo J. Cruz, and the members: J. Eugenio S. Labitoria (Chairman) and J. Marina L. Buzon concurring. dated November 23, 1999 in CA-G.R. SP No. 53750 entitled Hanjin Engineering & Construction Company, Inc. versus National Labor Relations Commission, Edgardo De La Cruz and Crispin Martinez.

Private respondents Edgardo De La Cruz and Crispin Martinez filed .an action for illegal dismissal against the herein petitioner Hanjin Engineering & Construction Company, Inc. with the National Labor Relations Commission. On July 23, 1996, Labor Arbiter Manuel P. Asuncion rendered his decision finding the dismissal of private respondents to be illegal and ordering the petitioner to reinstate private respondents and to pay them backwages from the time their salaries were withheld until they are actually reinstated.

The petitioner appealed to the NLRC but the appeal was dismissed. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied prompting him to file a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed the same and also denied reconsideration of the order of dismissal. Consequently, the decision of the Labor Arbiter finding the dismissal of private respondents as illegal became final and executory.

Thereafter, the petitioner received a copy of private respondents' recomputed backwages prepared by the labor arbiter which it opposed by filing a motion for recomputation. The petitioner claimed that the private respondents' backwages should be computed until June 22, 1995 only since the project that the respondents were hired for was completed on said date. The motion was denied and an alias writ of execution was simultaneously issued by the labor arbiter. 3 Order dated April 29, 1998; See Records, Volume II.

The petitioner appealed from the denial of its motion for recomputation but the appeal was dismissed by the NLRC 4 First Division composed of the ponente, Commissioner Alberto R. Quimpo, and the members: Presiding Commissioner Rogelio I. Rayala and Commissioner Vicente S.E. Velosos concurring.for lack of merit. 5 Resolution dated September 2, 1998; See Records, Volume II.Its motion for reconsideration was likewise denied 6 Resolution dated April 15, 1999; See Records, Volume II. prompting it to file a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 53750.

Meanwhile, pursuant to the alias writ of execution issued by the labor Arbiter, Sheriff Restituto Solomon issued a Notice of Garnishment against the petitioner's bond issued by Premier Insurance and Surety Corp.. The petitioner filed a motion to quash the writ but the same was granted only insofar as the excess of the amount of the account garnished to answer for the petitioners' reinstatement and backwages from the date of their dismissal to the time of their reinstatement. 7 Order dated October 14, 1999; See Records, Volume II. Consequently, the petitioner filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction With prayer for issuance of Temporary Restraining Order with the Court of Appeals as an ancillary remedy to its already pending appeal to enjoin the garnishment of its surety bond.

On November 23, 1999, the Court of Appeals denied the petitioner's motion for preliminary injunction with prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order. The Court of Appeals ratiocinated that the Motion for Preliminary Injunction with prayer for the issuance of Temporary Restraining Order filed by the petitioner did not contain the requisite allegations to support the issuance of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order which is a mere adjunct of a writ of preliminary injunction. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals stated that the garnishment in question was executed for the purpose of enforcing an already final and executory decision of the NLRC. Thus, in seeking to enjoin the garnishment, the petitioner was in effect praying for the annulment of said decision. 8 Rollo, 30-32.

Motion for reconsideration was denied 9 See Resolution dated October 11, 2000; Rollo 33.hence this petition.

In its petition, the petitioner attached the following documents in support thereof:

1. an original copy of the questioned Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated November 23, 1999 (Annex "A");

2. an original copy of the Resolution of the Court of 'Appeals dated October 11, 2000 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the November 23, 1999 Resolution (Annex "B");

3. a copy of the Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission dated July 23, 1996 declaring the dismissal of herein respondents as illegal and ordering their reinstatement together with the payment of backwages and attorney's fees (Annex "C"); and

4. a copy of the petitioner's Petition for Certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals questioning the NLRC's and Labor Arbiter's denial of its motion for recomputation of backwages of private respondents (Annex "D").

Unfortunately, the petitioner did not attach a copy of its "MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WITH PRAYER FOR THE ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER" which the Court of Appeals denied in the assailed Resolution of November 23, 1999. The omission is fatal for without said document as an attachment, this Court has no means of determining whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in ruling that petitioner's petition was deficient on the ground that it failed to embody the requisites for the issuance of injunction and/or a temporary restraining order. Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is explicit that the petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof and "copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto." The failure of the petitioner to attach this vital document is sufficient ground for the dismissal of the present petition pursuant to Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court. 10 In relation to Par. 2, 6 Rule 65 of the Rules of Court; See also 2 and 5 (d), Rule 56 of the Rules of Court.

We will also refrain from ruling on whether the injunction would result in enjoining the execution of a final and executory judgment. The issue as to whether the NLRC erred in denying petitioner's motion for recomputation of respondents' backwages on the ground that the same was final and executory was the main issue presented in the Petition for Certiorari which was only decided by the Court of Appeals on April 18, 2001. 11 The decision of the Court of Appeals is not yet final and executory.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.


Very truly yours,


Clerk of Court


Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main








  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™