Facts:

The case involves Ro-Ann Veterinary Manufacturing, Inc., Ronilo Dela Cruz, and Rafaelito Lagat, Jr. as petitioners, and Fernando A. Bingbing and Gilbert C. VillaseAor as respondents. The events leading to the case began when Bingbing and VillaseAor were employed as technical sales representatives by Ro-Ann Veterinary Manufacturing, Inc. Bingbing was hired in 2013 through Lagat, the Sales Team Leader in the Bicol region, while VillaseAor had been with the company since 2008. Their responsibilities included selling and delivering veterinary products, collecting payments, and remitting these payments to the company.

On March 1, 2014, both respondents were informed by clients that the company had issued an advisory stating they were no longer associated with Ro-Ann. Upon contacting Lagat, he confirmed that he had sent the advisories upon the company's instruction. The petitioners alleged that the respondents were involved in unexplained withdrawals of company items amounti...

Facts:

Employment and Termination

• Respondents Fernando A. Bingbing and Gilbert C. VillaseAor were employed by Ro-Ann Veterinary Manufacturing, Inc. (petitioner corporation) as technical sales representatives. Bingbing was hired in 2013, while VillaseAor had been employed since 2008.
• Their duties included selling and delivering veterinary products, collecting payments from customers, and remitting these payments to the petitioner corporation.

Advisory of Termination

• Around March 1, 2014, respondents were informed by clients that the petitioner corporation had released an advisory stating that they were no longer connected with the company. Petitioner Rafaelito Lagat, Jr., their team leader, confirmed that he sent the advisories upon the corporation's instruction.

Petitioners' Allegations

• Petitioners alleged that respondents were involved in unexplained withdrawals of company items amounting to P84,521.57, failed to remit customer payments, and were moonlighting. After confronting respondents about these infractions, they allegedly stopped reporting for work.

Respondents' Claims

• Respondents argued that the advisory constituted an express termination of their employment, which they claimed was illegal and without basis.

Labor Case Proceedings

• Respondents filed complaints with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for illegal dismissal, non-payment of salaries, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, separation pay, and claims for damages and attorney's fees.
• The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of respondents, declaring their dismissal illegal and ordering the petitioner corporation to pay P493,276.64 in monetary awards.
• The NLRC affirmed the LA's decision but deleted the monetary award for Bingbing due to the absence of his position paper in the records. The NLRC later reinstated the full award after Bingbing's motion for reconsideration was granted.

Execution of Judgment

• While the case was pending before the Court of Appeals (CA), the LA issued a Writ of Execution, demanding full satisfaction of the judgment award. The writ was enforced, and the judgment award was collected from the petitioner corporation's bank account and cash bond.

CA Proceedings

• The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari as moot and academic, citing the full satisfaction of the judgment award. Petitioners argued that the payment was made under compulsion due to the writ of execution and did not constitute a voluntary settlement.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Nature of a Petition for Certiorari: A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is a special civil action distinct from a regular appeal. It focuses on whether a tribunal acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. It is not a continuation of the original suit and is independent of the proceedings before the NLRC.

2. Execution of Judgment Does Not Render Certiorari Moot: The payment of a judgment award under a writ of execution does not render a petition for certiorari moot. The satisfaction of the award is merely compliance with the writ and does not equate to a voluntary settlement of claims.

3. No Voluntary Settlement: There was no evidence that petitioners voluntarily agreed to the termination of the mediation process or the withdrawal of their petition. The payment was made under compulsion due to the writ of execution.

4. Remand to the CA: The CA erred in dismissing the petition as moot. The case was remanded to the CA for a decision on the merits, as the satisfaction of the judgment award did not preclude further judicial review.