No. 155248.November 13, 2002]
IND'L. CORP. vs. ALEXANDER PENULDE, et al.
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
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.
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,
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
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
Thus, the instant petition which must likewise fail.
Article 223 of the Labor Code explicitly provides:
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
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.cralaw
the petition is denied due course.
JULIETA Y. CARREON