Case Digest (G.R. No. 104269)
Facts:
Department of Agriculture v. The National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 104269, November 11, 1993, the Supreme Court Third Division, Vitug, J., writing for the Court.The petition was filed by the Department of Agriculture (petitioner) seeking certiorari relief to nullify the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Fifth Division, Cagayan de Oro City, Resolution dated 27 November 1991 that denied petitioner’s prayer to quash execution and denied permanent injunctive relief against enforcement of an award by the Executive Labor Arbiter.
On 1 April 1989 the petitioner contracted with Sultan Security Agency to provide security services, and a subsequent contract was executed on 1 May 1990 with slightly higher monthly rates; security guards were deployed pursuant to these contracts. On 13 September 1990 several guards of Sultan Security Agency filed complaints before the Regional Arbitration Branch X, Cagayan de Oro City (docketed NLRC Case No. 10-09-00455-90 / 10-10-00519-90), alleging underpayment of wages, 13th month pay, allowances and other money claims.
The Executive Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on 31 May 1991 finding the Department of Agriculture jointly and severally liable with Sultan Security Agency for money claims aggregating P266,483.91. No appeal was taken and the decision became final and executory. On 18 July 1991 the Labor Arbiter issued a writ of execution, and on 19 July 1991 the City Sheriff levied three Department motor vehicles (Toyota Hi-Ace, Mini Cruiser and Crown), placing them in custody pending sale or final settlement.
Petitioner filed a petition for injunction, prohibition and mandamus with the NLRC, praying inter alia that the writ of execution be quashed because the Labor Arbiter lacked jurisdiction over the State and because attachment would hamper governmental functions; petitioner also argued the claim fell under the exclusive procedures of the Commission on Audit. The NLRC promulgated the challenged 27 November 1991 Resolution: it temporarily suspended enforcement for two months (not beyond the last quarter of 1991) to allow petitioner to raise funds, ordered deposit or posting of a surety/supersedeas bond equivalent to at least fifty percent of the award, directed release of levied properties upon posting of bond, and dismissed the petition for injunction though it issued a conditional temporary stay of execution; motions in intervention were denied.
Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC in refusing to quash the writ of execution, asserting the constitutional doctrine of non-suability of the State and the requirem...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion in refusing to quash the writ of execution and in denying permanent injunctive relief against enforcement of the Labor Arbiter’s award?
- Did the Department of Agriculture waive its sovereign immunity by contracting with Sultan Security Agency such that it could be sued and have execution levied on its property?
- Even assuming the State is amenable to suit for money claims, could writs of execution lawfully issue against public...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)