ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 155248.November 13, 2002]
ANTONINA IND'L. CORP. vs. ALEXANDER PENULDE, et al.
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 13 NOV 2002.
G.R. No. 155248(Antonina Industrial Corporation vs. Alexander Penulde, Edna Galvez and Federico Ramos, Jr.)
Petitioner assails the decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing its petition for failure to exhaust all administrative remedies.
On April 15, 1995, private respondents Alexander Penulde, Edna Galvez and Federico Ramos filed a complaint against petitioner for illegal dismissal, non-payment of overtime pay, premium pay for holiday and rest day, and night-shift differential.
On October 27, 1997, the labor arbiter rendered a decision in favor of private respondents, thus:
WHEREFORE, respondent-Antonina Industrial Corp. is hereby directed to reinstate complainants Alexander Penulde and Edna Galvez effective November 16, 1997, to pay their respective backwages in the amount of One Hundred Ninety One Thousand One Hundred Sixty Pesos and Eight Centavos (P191,160.08) and to pay complainant Federico Ramos the amount of One Thousand Pesos by way of indemnification.
SO ORDERED. [1] cralaw
On December 3, 1997, private respondents Penulde and Galvez filed a motion for Issuance of Partial Execution while Ramos interposed a partial appeal insofar as the labor arbiter did not order his reinstatement.
On February 18, 1998, the labor arbiter issued a Writ of Execution ordering the reinstatement of Penulde and Galvez and the payment of their backwages. However, the same was returned unsatisfied.
The NLRC, acting on Ramos' appeal, modified the labor arbiter's decision by ordering his reinstatement to his former position, without backwages.
On January 31, 2000, private respondents filed a Motion for Issuance of Alias Writ with Prayer for Recomputation of Backwages. In the motion, private respondents prayed for additional backwages in the aggregate amount of P289,043.00, representing their backwages from November 16, 1997 up to the date of their actual reinstatement, presumably on February 1, 2000. The motion also sought the immediate reinstatement of Ramos.
Granting said motion, the Labor Arbiter issued an Alias Writ of Execution. Thereafter, a notice of garnishment was issued against petitioner's bank account with UCPB Bank, Balibago Branch, Sta. Rosa, Laguna.
On March 28, 2000, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash and/or Recall Alias Writ of Execution. It claimed that it was not given an opportunity to present its objection on the recomputed backwages.
On May 19, 2000, the Labor Arbiter issued an Order giving petitioner until May 31, 2000 to submit its own computation and the legal basis thereof. However, no computation was submitted. Instead on June 26, 2000, petitioner filed an Ex-Parte Motion/Manifestation to Reduce the Monetary Award.
On September 18, 2000, the labor arbiter issued an order denying petitioner's motion to quash and/or recall alias writ of execution and ex-parte motion/manifestation to reduce monetary award.
Instead of appealing to the National Labor Relations Commission, petitioner elevated the case directly to the Court of Appeals by way of a petition for review on certiorari but the same was dismissed.
Thus, the instant petition which must likewise fail.
Article 223 of the Labor Code explicitly provides:
ART. 223.Appeal
Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders. xxx
Corollarily, certiorari should be preceded by exhaustion of administrative remedies.Thus, when an administrative remedy is provided by law, as in the case at bar, relief must be sought by first exhausting that remedy before seeking judicial intervention.Failure to do so is fatal. [2] cralaw
WHEREFORE , the petition is denied due course.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo, p. 62.
[2] cralaw National Labor Union vs. Secretary of Labor, 156 SCRA 592 [1987]; Macamay vs. Tejano, 162 SCRA 365 [1988].
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
