[G.R. No. 118216.

March 9, 2000]
DELTAVENTURES RESOURCES, INC., petitioner, vs. ON. !ERNANDO ".
CA#ATO, "r$%&'&() *+')$ R$)&o(a, Tr&a, Co+r-, La Tr&(&'a', #$()+$-,
#ra(ch 62. ON. GELACIO L. RIVERA, *R., E/$c+-&0$ La1or Ar1&-$r,
NLRC2CAR, #a)+&o C&-3, ADAM ". VENTURA, D$4+-32Sh$r&55, NLRC2CAR,
#a)+&o C&-3. ALE*ANDRO #ERNARDINO, AUGUSTO GRANADOS,
"ILANDO TANGA6, NESTOR RA#ANG, RA6 DA6A", M6RA #A6AONA,
VIOL6 LI#AO, AIDA LI#AO, *ESUS GATCO a(' GREGORIO
DULA6, respondents. Ma(&7a(8
D E C I S I O N
9UISUM#ING, J.:
This special civil action for certiorari seeks to annul the Order dated
November 7, 1994,
[1]
of respondent Jude !ernando "# $abato of the %eional
Trial $ourt of &a Trinidad, 'enuet, 'ranch (), in $ivil $ase No# 94*$+*,94-,
dismissin petitioner.s amended third*part/ complaint, as 0ell as the Order
dated 1ecember 14, 1994,
[)]
den/in motion for reconsideration#
On Jul/ 12, 199), a 1ecision
[3]
0as rendered b/ 45ecutive &abor 6rbiter
Norma Oleario, National &abor %elations $ommission * %eional 6rbitration
'oard, $ordillera 6utonomous %eion 7$ommission8, in N&%$ $ase No# ,1*
,-*,1(2*-9 entitled 96le:andro 'ernardino, et al# vs# ;reen <ountain !arm,
%oberto Onpin and 6lmus 6labe9, the dispositive portion of 0hich reads as
follo0s=
9>?4%4!O%4, :udment is hereb/ rendered declarin the
respondents uilt/ of @lleal 1ismissal and Anfair &abor "ractice
and orderin them to pa/ the complainants, in solidum, in the
amounts herein belo0 listed=
1# +iol/ &ibao "131,3(-#,7
)# </ra 'a/aona 1)1,47,#)3
3# ;reorio 1ula/ 1)-,3()#17
4# Jesus ;atcho 1)(,472#17OldmisB o
2# 6le:andro 'ernardino 11,,12-#),
(# "ilando Tana/ 1,7,-,)#((
7# 6ida &ibao 1)9,9(7#34
-# %e/ 1a/ap 1)3,)-9#)1
9# Nestor %aban 9,,(11#(9
1,# 6uusto ;ranados 1,-,1,(#,3
plus attorne/.s fees in the amount of "1,,,,,#,,#
%espondent 6lmus 6labe is also ordered to ans0er in e5emplar/
damaes in the amount of "2,,,,#,, each to all the
complainants#
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
CO O%14%41#9
[4]
On <a/ 19, 1994, complainants in the abovementioned labor case, filed
before the $ommission a motion for the issuance of a 0rit of e5ecution as
respondent.s appeal to the $ommission and this $ourt
[2]
0ere respectivel/
denied# NcmB
On June 1(, 1994, 45ecutive &abor 6rbiter ;elacio $# %ivera, Jr# to 0hom the
case 0as reassined in vie0 of &abor 6rbiter Oleario.s transfer, issued a 0rit
of e5ecution
[(]
directin N&%$ 1eput/ Cheriff 6dam +entura to e5ecute the
:udment aainst respondents, ;reen <ountain !arm, %oberto Onpin and
6lmus 6labe# Cheriff +entura then proceeded to enforce the 0rit b/ arnishin
certain personal properties of respondents# !indin that said :udment debtors
do not have sufficient personal properties to satisf/ the monetar/ a0ard,
Cheriff +entura proceeded to lev/ upon a real propert/ covered b/ Ta5
1eclaration No# 9(97, reistered in the name of %oberto Onpin, one of the
respondents in the labor case# Thereafter, Cheriff +entura caused the
publication on the Jul/ 17, 1994 edition of the 'auio <idland $ourier the
date of the public auction of said real propert/#
On Jul/ )7, 1994, a month before the scheduled auction sale, herein
petitioner filed before the $ommission a third*part/ claim
[7]
assertin o0nership
over the propert/ levied upon and sub:ect of the CheriffDs notice of sale# &abor
6rbiter %ivera thus issued an order directin the suspension of the auction
sale until the merits of petitioner.s claim has been resolved#
[-]
?o0ever, on 6uust 1(, 1994, petitioner filed 0ith the %eional Trial $ourt of
&a Trinidad, 'enuet a complaint for in:unction and damaes, 0ith a pra/er for
the issuance of a temporar/ restrainin order aainst Cheriff +entura,
reiteratin the same alleations it raised in the third part/ claim it filed 0ith the
$ommission# The petition 0as docketed as $ivil $ase No# 94*$+*,94-,
entitled 91eltaventures %esources, @nc#, petitioner vs# 6dam "# +entura, et# al#,
defendants#9 The ne5t da/, 6uust 17, 1994, respondent Jude $abato issued
a temporar/ restrainin order, en:oinin respondents in the civil case before
him to hold in abe/ance an/ action relative to the enforcement of the decision
in the labor case#
[9]
NcmmisE
"etitioner like0ise filed on 6uust 3,, 1994, an amended complaint
[1,]
to
implead &abor 6rbiter %ivera and herein private respondent*laborers#
!urther, on Ceptember ),, 1994, petitioner filed 0ith the $ommission a
manifestation
[11]
Fuestionin the latter.s authorit/ to hear the case, the matter
bein 0ithin the :urisdiction of the reular courts# The manifestation, ho0ever,
0as dismissed b/ &abor 6rbiter %ivera on October 3, 1994#
[1)]
<ean0hile, on Ceptember ),, 1994, private respondent*laborers, moved for
the dismissal of the civil case on the round of the court.s lack of :urisdiction#
[13]
"etitioner filed its opposition to said motion on October 4, 1994#
[14]
On November 7, 1994, after both parties had submitted their respective briefs,
respondent court rendered its assailed decision premised on the follo0in
rounds=
9!irst, this $ourt is of eFual rank 0ith the N&%$, hence, has no
:urisdiction to issue an in:unction aainst the e5ecution of the
N&%$ decision# 5 5 5#
Cecond, the N&%$ retains authorit/ over all proceedins anent
the e5ecution of its decision# This po0er carries 0ith it the riht to
determine ever/ Fuestion 0hich ma/ be involved in the e5ecution
of its decision# 5 5 5#
Third, 1eltaventures %esources, @nc. should rel/ on and compl/
0ith the %ules of the N&%$ because it is the principal procedure
to be follo0ed, the %ules of $ourt bein merel/ suppletor/ in
application, 5 5 5# CcncG m
!ourth, the invocation of estoppel b/ the plaintiffs is misplaced# 5 5
5# [']efore the defendants have filed their formal ans0er to the
amended complaint, the/ moved to dismiss it for lack of
:urisdiction#
&astl/, the plaintiff, havin in the first place addressed to the
:urisdiction of the N&%$ b/ filin 0ith it a Third "art/ $laim ma/
not at the same time pursue the present amended $omplaint
under the forum shoppin rule#9
[12]
Their motion for reconsideration havin been denied b/ respondent Jude,
[1(]
petitioner promptl/ filed this petition no0 before us#
@n spite of the man/ errors assined b/ petitioner,
[17]
0e find that here the core
issue is 0hether or not the trial court ma/ take coniHance of the complaint
filed b/ petitioner and conseFuentl/ provide the in:unctive relief souht# Cuch
coniHance, in turn, 0ould depend on 0hether the acts complained of are
related to, connected or inter0oven 0ith the cases fallin under the e5clusive
:urisdiction of the &abor 6rbiter or of the N&%$#
"etitioner avers that court a quo erred in dismissin the third*part/ claim on
the round of lack of :urisdiction# !urther, it contends that the N&%$*$6% did
not acFuire :urisdiction over the claim for it did not impun the decision of the
N&%$*$6% but merel/ Fuestioned the propriet/ of the lev/ made b/ Cheriff
+entura# @n support of its claim, petitioner asserts that the instant case does
not involve a labor dispute, as no emplo/er*emplo/ee relationship e5ist
bet0een the parties# Nor is the petitioner.s case related in an/ 0a/ to either
parties. case before the N&%$*$6% hence, not 0ithin the :urisdiction of the
$ommission# CdaaE miso
'asic as a hornbook principle, :urisdiction over the sub:ect matter of a case is
conferred b/ la0 and determined b/ the alleations in the complaint
[1-]
0hich
comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts constitutin the petitioner.s
cause of action#
[19]
Thus 0e have held that=
9Jurisdiction over the sub:ect*matter is determined upon the
alleations made in the complaint, irrespective of 0hether the
plaintiff is entitled or not entitled to recover upon the claim
asserted therein * a matter resolved onl/ after and as a result of
the trial#9
[),]
"etitioner filed the third*part/ claim before the court a Fuo b/ reason of a 0rit
of e5ecution issued b/ the N&%$*$6% Cheriff aainst a propert/ to 0hich it
claims o0nership# The 0rit 0as issued to enforce and e5ecute the
commission.s decision in N&%$ $ase No# ,1*,-*,1(2*-9 7@lleal 1ismissal
and Anfair &abor "ractice8 aainst ;reen <ountain !arm, %oberto Onpin
and 6lmus 6labe#
Ostensibl/ the complaint before the trial court 0as for the recover/ of
possession and in:unction, but in essence it 0as an action challenin the
lealit/ or propriet/ of the lev/ vis-a-visthe alias 0rit of e5ecution, includin the
acts performed b/ the &abor 6rbiter and the 1eput/ Cheriff implementin the
0rit# The complaint 0as in effect a motion to Fuash the 0rit of e5ecution of a
decision rendered on a case properl/ 0ithin the :urisdiction of the &abor
6rbiter, to 0it= @lleal 1ismissal and Anfair &abor "ractice# $onsiderin the
factual settin, it is then loical to conclude that the sub:ect matter of the third
part/ claim is but an incident of the labor case, a matter be/ond the
:urisdiction of reional trial courts# Cdaad
"recedent abound confirmin the rule that said courts have no :urisdiction to
act on labor cases or various incidents arisin therefrom, includin the
e5ecution of decisions, a0ards or orders#
[)1]
Jurisdiction to tr/ and ad:udicate
such cases pertains e5clusivel/ to the proper labor official concerned under
the 1epartment of &abor and 4mplo/ment# To hold other0ise is to sanction
split :urisdiction 0hich is obno5ious to the orderl/ administration of :ustice#
[))]
"etitioner failed to realiHe that b/ filin its third*part/ claim 0ith the deput/
sheriff, it submitted itself to the :urisdiction of the $ommission actin throuh
the &abor 6rbiter# @t failed to perceive the fact that 0hat it is reall/
controvertin is the decision of the &abor 6rbiter and not the act of the deput/
sheriff in e5ecutin said order issued as a conseFuence of said decision
rendered#
Jurisdiction once acFuired is not lost upon the instance of the parties but
continues until the case is terminated#
[)3]
>hatever irreularities attended the
issuance an e5ecution of the alias 0rit of e5ecution should be referred to the
same administrative tribunal 0hich rendered the decision#
[)4]
This is because
an/ court 0hich issued a 0rit of e5ecution has the inherent po0er, for the
advancement of :ustice, to correct errors of its ministerial officers and to
control its o0n processes#
[)2]
CcsG daad
The broad po0ers ranted to the &abor 6rbiter and to the National &abor
%elations $ommission b/ 6rticles )17, )1- and ))4 of the &abor $ode can
onl/ be interpreted as vestin in them :urisdiction over incidents arisin from,
in connection 0ith or relatin to labor disputes, as the controvers/ under
consideration, to the e5clusion of the reular courts#
?avin established that :urisdiction over the case rests 0ith the $ommission,
0e find no rave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent Jude $abato
in den/in petitioner.s motion for the issuance of an in:unction aainst the
e5ecution of the decision of the National &abor %elations $ommission#
<oreover, it must be noted that the &abor $ode in 6rticle )24 e5plicitl/
prohibits issuance of a temporar/ or permanent in:unction or restrainin order
in an/ case involvin or ro0in out of labor disputes b/ an/ court or other
entit/ 7e5cept as other0ise provided in 6rts# )1- and )(48# 6s correctl/
observed b/ court a Fuo, the main issue and the sub:ect of the amended
complaint for in:unction are Fuestions inter0oven 0ith the e5ecution of the
$ommission.s decision# No doubt the aforecited prohibition in 6rticle )24 is
applicable# CupE rema
"etitioner should have filed its third*part/ claim before the &abor 6rbiter, from
0hom the 0rit of e5ecution oriinated, before institutin said civil case# The
N&%$.s <anual on 45ecution of Judment,
[)(]
issued pursuant to 6rticle )1- of
the &abor $ode, provides the mechanism for a third*part/ claimant to assert
his claim over a propert/ levied upon b/ the sheriff pursuant to an order or
decision of the $ommission or of the &abor 6rbiter# The po0er of the &abor
6rbiter to issue a 0rit of e5ecution carries 0ith it the po0er to inFuire into the
correctness of the e5ecution of his decision and to consider 0hatever
supervenin events miht transpire durin such e5ecution#
<oreover, in den/in petitioner.s petition for in:unction, the court a Fuo is
merel/ upholdin the time*honored principle that a %eional Trial $ourt, bein
a co*eFual bod/ of the National &abor %elations $ommission, has no
:urisdiction to issue an/ restrainin order or in:unction to en:oin the e5ecution
of an/ decision of the latter#
[)7]
JurisG
;ERE!ORE, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is 14N@41# The
assailed Orders of respondent Jude !ernando "# $abato dated November 7,
1994 and 1ecember 14, 1994, respectivel/ are 6!!@%<41# The records of
this case are hereb/ %4<6N141 to the National &abor %elations
$ommission for further proceedins#
$osts aainst petitioner#
SO ORDERED. Sc8 <+r&%