Title
Araullo vs. Office of the Ombudsman
Case
G.R. No. 194169
Decision Date
Dec 4, 2013
Araullo filed a labor case against Club Filipino for illegal dismissal. Writ of Execution quashed due to procedural errors; Ombudsman dismissed misconduct charges against NLRC officials. SC upheld decision.
irregularity in actions
sound discretion
judgment
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 194169)

Factual Background: The Labor Case and the Computation of Monetary Award

Petitioner filed a labor case for illegal dismissal with a prayer for recovery of salaries, benefits, and damages against Club Filipino in NLRC NCR Case No. 00-01-00581-2001. The labor litigation culminated in a judgment by the Court of Appeals (CA) declaring petitioner’s dismissal illegal, ordering reinstatement or, if reinstatement became impossible, separation pay, together with full backwages and other monetary benefits.

After the CA judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 167723, the labor case was remanded to the NLRC for computation of petitioner’s actual entitlements. The Labor Arbiter, Fedriel Panganiban (Arbiter Panganiban), directed the NLRC Computation and Examination Unit to compute the liabilities of Club Filipino. The Unit issued a written computation granting petitioner backwages of P1,494,000.00, 13th month pay of P124,500.00, sick leave/vacation leave of P143,652.25, and separation pay of P576,000.00, for a total award of P2,338,152.25.

On December 13, 2007, Arbiter Panganiban issued an Order of voluntary inhibition. His stated reason was that petitioner’s counsel repeatedly followed up on issuance of a writ of execution and even hinted at filing an administrative case with the Ombudsman if execution was not issued.

Assumption by Arbiter Anni and the Events Surrounding Execution Proceedings

The labor case was raffled to Labor Arbiter Arden S. Anni (Arbiter Anni) on January 4, 2008. Petitioner filed a 4th Ex-Parte Manifestation with a very urgent prayer for issuance of a writ of execution on January 8, 2008. Club Filipino followed with a Motion to Recompute dated January 10, 2008, filed on January 21, 2008.

On January 31, 2008, Arbiter Anni issued an Order holding in abeyance any action on petitioner’s execution and related motions until Club Filipino’s appeal regarding Arbiter Panganiban’s inhibition was resolved. The NLRC later dismissed the appeal and ordered that the records be forwarded to the branch of origin for continuation of execution proceedings.

On July 29, 2008, Arbiter Anni issued a Writ of Execution ordering collection of the computed award of P2,338,152.25, as well as execution fees of P23,380.00. Club Filipino then moved to quash the writ, arguing that it was issued without resolving pending incidents and issues and allegedly without compliance with NLRC procedural requirements, including lack of an order approving the computation and lack of notice to the parties.

Before Club Filipino’s motion to quash could be heard on August 20, 2008, Arbiter Anni issued an August 12, 2008 Order quashing the writ, enjoining the sheriff from further execution, and lifting garnishment notices issued to banks. Two days later, on August 14, 2008, he issued another Order voluntarily inhibiting himself on the ground that his impartiality might be questioned due to his rapport with Atty. Roberto Obet De Leon, Club Filipino’s President, and Atty. Ernesto P. Tabao, respondents’ counsel, because they were fraternity brothers in San Beda College of Law.

Petitioner’s Attempt to Challenge Quashal and the NLRC’s Response

On August 22, 2008, petitioner filed with the NLRC a very urgent petition to set aside Arbiter Anni’s August 12, 2008 Order, insisting that it defied the directive to continue with execution, that execution was ministerial, and that quashing the writ constituted an evasion of duty. Petitioner also alleged that Arbiter Anni’s inhibition was designed to favor Club Filipino, that Club Filipino’s motion to quash was a “scrap of paper” since petitioner’s counsel was not furnished a copy, and that the writ had already been fully implemented and satisfied.

The NLRC, through its First Division composed of Commissioners Gerardo C. Nograles, Romeo L. Go, and Perlita B. Velasco, denied petitioner’s petition in an October 29, 2008 Resolution. The NLRC held that the quashal order was not supported by merit and that, given the computation issues and procedural requirements, it was necessary to resolve pending matters before proceeding under the rules. The NLRC noted that Arbiter Panganiban had earlier committed that after submission of comments and written computation by the Computation and Examination Unit, he would issue an order approving or disapproving the computation. Arbiter Panganiban’s inhibition overtook this commitment. When Arbiter Anni assumed, the NLRC observed that he issued the writ without first approving or disapproving the computation or resolving the subsequent January 10, 2008 Motion to Recompute, thereby circumventing Rule XI, Section 4 of the 2005 NLRC Revised Rules of Procedure. It concluded that the logical step was to resolve pending issues and incidents first, which required remand to the Labor Arbiter.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the NLRC denied it in a March 18, 2009 Resolution.

Ombudsman Proceedings: The Administrative Charge for Grave Misconduct

On July 28, 2009, petitioner filed a complaint before the Ombudsman against the respondents for alleged violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 and Article 206 of the Revised Penal Code. The criminal case was docketed as OMB-C-C-09-0410-H and was later dismissed via an undated resolution. The administrative case, docketed as OMB-C-A-09-0437-H, proceeded based on a charge of grave misconduct.

Petitioner alleged that Arbiter Anni entertained Club Filipino’s motion to quash without ensuring that petitioner’s counsel received a copy. He further claimed that Arbiter Anni hastily resolved to quash the writ and lift garnishment notices before the scheduled date of hearing. Petitioner also contended that after quashing the writ, Arbiter Anni inhibited himself to wash his hands of the improper quashal, thereby conspiring to delay execution and to give unwarranted benefits to Club Filipino.

Petitioner likewise accused the Commissioners of gross misconduct for sustaining Arbiter Anni’s quashal in the October 29, 2008 Resolution.

In response, the Commissioners asserted that their acts were lawful and regular and that they sustained Arbiter Anni’s quashal precisely because the writ was improvidently issued. They argued that allowing execution to proceed would have violated due process by running ahead of procedural safeguards. They maintained that they acted cautiously, prudently, in good faith, and with respect for the NLRC Rules. They invoked the presumption of regularity and emphasized that petitioner’s earlier threats to file administrative and criminal cases influenced the posture of the respondents, and that these threats were visible from circumstances revealed by the earlier order of Arbiter Panganiban.

Arbiter Anni similarly denied the accusations and explained that he was compelled to quash the writ due to pending incidents that had to be resolved first in accordance with Rule XI, Section 4. He emphasized that garnishment had not been effected when the writ was quashed. He also stated that his setting of the August 20, 2008 hearing was based on scheduling constraints and that issuing the August 12, 2008 quashal order did not violate due process because the writ was defective under the governing procedural rules. He added that his inhibition was not intended to delay execution, but to avoid suspicion given his relationships with Club Filipino’s President and its counsel.

Ombudsman’s Decision

The Ombudsman ultimately dismissed the grave misconduct charge in an undated Decision in OMB-C-A-09-0437-H. It concluded that Arbiter Anni’s quashal corrected procedural errors in the labor proceedings. The Ombudsman believed Arbiter Anni acted to rectify a violation of the NLRC Rules and to avoid further contravention, rather than to delay the execution or to favor Club Filipino. It also reasoned that Arbiter Anni needed to correct himself before inhibiting from the case.

The Ombudsman further posited that the execution would have been nullified regardless of Club Filipino’s motion to quash because the labor proceedings had lapses that required rectification. It held that in the absence of clear proof of a manifest intent to violate the law, or a flagrant disregard of established rules, grave misconduct could not be established. It therefore held that respondents’ acts were directed toward correcting errors, not toward committing misconduct.

The Supreme Court Proceedings: Issue and Petitioner’s Position

After the Ombudsman dismissal, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari. He framed the sole issue as whether there was substantial evidence to hold respondents liable for grave misconduct. Petitioner reiterated his earlier claims: that Arbiter Anni proceeded against the motion to quash notwithstanding alleged non-furnishing of the motion to petitioner’s counsel; that Arbiter Anni quashed the writ and lifted garnishment notices before the motion to quash could be heard; that Arbiter Anni conspired with fraternity brothers in Club Filipino to delay execution; and that the Commissioners acted improperly in sustaining Arbiter Anni’s quashal.

Petitioner also criticized the undated character of the Ombudsman Decision and argued that his counsel was not furnished a copy. He prayed that the Supreme Court set aside the Ombudsman’s Decision and declare respondents guilty of grave misconduct.

Respondents’ Position Before the Supreme Court

The Commissioners argued that no grave abuse of discretion existed, and that the Ombudsman correctly applied the evidence and law. They insisted that the elements of grave misconduct were absent because their acts were lawful, regular, prudent, and cautious. They maintained that their October 29, 2008 resolution only corrected Arbiter Anni’s mistake in issuing a writ of execution without proper procedure under the NLRC Rules.

Arbiter Anni maintained innocence and asserted good faith and duty-based action. He denied any clear intent to violate the law or any flagrant disregard of the NLRC Rules and emphasized

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms