Facts:

The case involves the petitioners, Cosmos Foundry Shop Workers Union and Filemon G. Alvarez, against the respondents, Lo Bu and the Court of Appeals. The events leading to this case began in 1961 when a labor dispute arose involving the Cosmos Foundry Shop. After a prolonged legal battle, the Court of Industrial Relations issued a judgment in favor of the labor union, which led to the issuance of a third alias writ of execution on January 16, 1973, to enforce the judgment. Deputy Sheriff Mario Abiog was tasked with executing the writ, which involved levying the personal properties of the Cosmos Foundry Shop and the New Century Foundry Shop for a public auction sale.

On January 17 and 18, 1973, while the execution was underway, Lo Bu filed an urgent motion to recall the writ, claiming that the Court of Industrial Relations lacked jurisdiction and that the labor union had failed to post an indemnity bond. The Court of Industrial Relations denied these motions on February 23,...

Facts:

1. Labor Dispute and Judgment:
   Petitioner Cosmos Foundry Shop Workers Union (the Union) prevailed in an unfair labor practice case against Cosmos Foundry Shop. The case had been ongoing since 1961, with the Union facing continuous delays in enforcing its judgment due to the actions of Ong Ting (now deceased) and private respondent Lo Bu.

2. Execution of Judgment:
   On January 16, 1973, the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) issued a third alias writ of execution in favor of the Union. Deputy Sheriff Mario Abiog levied on the properties of Cosmos Foundry Shop (also known as New Century Foundry Shop) on January 17 and 18, 1973, to conduct a public auction.

3. Lo Bu's Motions and Appeals:
   Lo Bu filed an urgent motion to recall the writ of execution, claiming lack of jurisdiction by the CIR and failure of the Union to post an indemnity bond. The CIR denied his motions on February 23, 1973, and again on March 23, 1973. Lo Bu appealed to the Supreme Court via certiorari (G.R. No. L-36636), but the petition was denied on July 17, 1973.

4. Replevin Suit:
   While the certiorari petition was pending, Lo Bu filed a replevin suit in the Court of First Instance of Manila, seeking to recover the same properties levied by the Union. The Union moved to dismiss the replevin suit, arguing that Lo Bu was a fictitious buyer, as previously found by the CIR and affirmed by the Supreme Court. The lower court dismissed the replevin suit, but Lo Bu appealed to the Court of Appeals.

5. Findings of Fictitious Sale:
   The CIR had previously found that Ong Ting, after the Cosmos Foundry Shop burned down, established the New Century Foundry Shop. Ong Ting attempted to settle the labor dispute for lower amounts, but when these were rejected, he executed a deed of absolute sale on December 31, 1968, selling the business to Lo Bu for P20,000. The CIR found this sale to be fictitious, intended to avoid liability, as Ong Ting and his family continued to manage the business without any actual turnover to Lo Bu.

6. Supreme Court's Resolution:
   The Supreme Court, in its resolution of July 17, 1973, denied Lo Bu's certiorari petition, affirming the CIR's jurisdiction and the validity of the writ of execution. This resolution became the law of the case.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Law of the Case:
   The Supreme Court's resolution of July 17, 1973, denying Lo Bu's certiorari petition, became the law of the case. This resolution affirmed the CIR's jurisdiction and the validity of the writ of execution. As such, Lo Bu was barred from relitigating the same issues in the replevin suit.

2. Fictitious Sale and Bad Faith:
   The CIR had found that the sale of the New Century Foundry Shop to Lo Bu was fictitious and intended to avoid liability. The Supreme Court affirmed this finding, and Lo Bu's bad faith was evident. He could not take advantage of the situation to further delay the Union's rightful claim.

3. Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals:
   The Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to entertain Lo Bu's appeal because the issues had already been conclusively decided by the Supreme Court. Allowing the appeal would sanction further delays, contrary to the principles of social justice and the protection of labor rights.

4. Social Justice and Labor Protection:
   The Court emphasized that the Union's judgment had been delayed for over a decade due to Lo Bu's tactics. Further delay would be repugnant to the principles of social justice and the constitutional mandate to protect labor rights.

5. Counsel's Conduct:
   The Court criticized Lo Bu's counsel for ignoring the truth and engaging in tactics designed to frustrate the enforcement of the Union's judgment. Counsel's conduct was deemed far from commendable and contrary to the dignity of the legal profession.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Union, granting certiorari and prohibition to stop Lo Bu's appeal in the Court of Appeals. The Court emphasized the finality of its prior resolution, the bad faith of Lo Bu, and the need to uphold labor rights and social justice. The Court of Appeals was ordered to dismiss the appeal, and Lo Bu was barred from further delaying the enforcement of the Union's judgment.