G.R. No. L-27598 - Cue vs. Dolla

Paquito V. Ando, the petitioner, served as the president of Premier Allied and Contracting Services, Inc. (PACSI), an independent labor contractor.
The respondents were hired by PACSI as pilers or haulers to manually carry bags of sugar and load them onto trucks at the warehouse of Victorias Milling Company.

In June 1998, the respondents were dismissed from employment.
The respondents filed a case for illegal dismissal and money claims before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Regional Arbitration Branch No. VI, Bacolod City.
On June 14, 2001, Labor Arbiter Phibun D. Pura issued a decision in favor of the respondents, awarding separation pay and attorney’s fees amounting to P422,702.28.

Petitioner and PACSI appealed the Labor Arbiter’s decision to the NLRC.
On October 20, 2004, the NLRC ruled that petitioner had failed to perfect his appeal by not paying the supersedeas bond.
The NLRC affirmed the decision with a modification regarding the award for separation pay for four employees similarly situated.
After the decision became final, respondents sought execution of the monetary award.

NLRC Acting Sheriff Romeo Pasustento issued a Notice of Sale on Execution of Personal Property concerning property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-140167, registered in the names of “Paquito V. Ando x x x married to Erlinda S. Ando.”
Petitioner filed an action for prohibition and damages with a request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 50, Bacolod City.
He contended that the property was his and his wife’s, not that of the corporation, and should therefore not be subject to execution against a judgment rendered against PACSI.

On December 27, 2006, the RTC issued an Order denying the TRO, holding that it had no jurisdiction over the case, and stated that the petitioner’s recourse was to file a third-party claim with the NLRC Sheriff.
Despite alleging lack of jurisdiction, the RTC proceeded to decide on the merits of the case.
The petitioner did not file a motion for reconsideration of the RTC Order but instead elevated the issue by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA).

Petitioner argued that the RTC acted with lack or excess of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion by denying his TRO application.
He maintained that, being sued in his representative capacity and not in his personal capacity, the execution of the levy on a property owned by him and his wife was improper.
Petitioner further contended that he had the alternative remedy to file a third-party claim with the NLRC sheriff or alternatively file a separate action—asserting the civil nature of the dispute regarding the execution process.
He asserted that the property, being his conjugal partnership with his wife, is protected as a family home under the Family Code, and executing on it would result in deprivation of property without due process.

Whether the RTC had jurisdiction to grant a TRO or issue an order restraining the implementation of the writ of execution in a labor case.
Whether the petitioner, who was sued in his representative capacity as president of PACSI rather than in his personal capacity, could validly bring a third-party claim regarding the property levied.

Whether the petitioner’s remedy should have been limited to filing a third-party claim with the NLRC Sheriff as provided under the NLRC Manual on the Execution of Judgment.
Whether the execution of the judgment against the property (which belonged to the petitioner and his wife) was appropriate, given that it did not belong to the judgment debtor (PACSI).

Whether the implementation of the execution proceedings should be governed solely by the NLRC Manual on the Execution of Judgment rather than by the regular Rules of Court by analogy or in a supplementary manner.
Whether the petitioner’s claim to choose between remedies (filing a third-party claim or a separate civil action) is tenable under the existing jurisprudence and procedural rules.