LA Del Valle Jr v.

Sheriff Dy

G.R. No: 170977

Petitioner/s: Jose C. Del Valle, Jr. and Adolfo C. Alemania
Respondent/s: Francis B. Dy
Ponente: J. Quisimbing
Date of Promulgation: April 16, 2009
Action: Petition for Certiorari

FACTS

Instant petition stemmed from a complaint for illegal dismissal filed

by Clea Deocariza against LC Big Mak Burger Inc., and its HR
Officer Teresa Israel
Despite many opportunies, the above mentioned did not file their
position papers. LA del Valle even had the notices and orders sent
to their head office in Lucena. They still failed to comply.
LA del Valle rendered a decision in favor of Deocariza and a copy
was sent by registered mail to Dy and Israel at their head office.
The receipt was time stamped November 22, 2001
Since no appeal was made, the decision became final and executory.
A writ of Execution was issued on December 17, 2001
LC Big Mak and Israel filed a Motion to Quash the Writ of Execution
o They claim that they were completely unaware of the
decision and the writ.
o Notices and orders requiring them to file a position paper
were not made known to their officers in Lucena City
LA del Valle denied the motion ruling that they had already waived
their opportunity to submit their position paper by their continued

inaction on the lawful orders and notices sent to them. Judgment

can now be executed as a matter of right being final and executory
Acting on a motion for the issuance of the writ of execution, LA del
Valle issued an order directing all parties to appear for a preexecution conference. Only Deocariza attended.
LA del Valle directed NLRC Sheriff Adolfo Alemania to collect an
amount of P48,756.72 and in case of failure to get cash, he is
directed to cause the satisfaction of the same to be made out of
movable goods or cattels in the possession of the respondent
Sheriff Alemania went to their head office and levied upon 33 sacks
of flour and 3 sacks of refined sugar
Petitioners filed a complaint for injunction and damages claiming that
LA decision is void on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, grave abuse
of discretion, violation of due process, and denial of substantial
justice. They prayed that the properties levied upon be released
RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction as it questions
the propriety of actions taken by the labor tribunal
Petitioners filed MR but was treated as not filed for failure to include
requisite notice of hearing and explanation why service was not
done personally and failure of counsel to indicate his Roll Number
on the motion.
They filed another MR with the necessary corrections but denied for
lack of merit
Dy filed (separate from LC Big Mak) a petition for certiorary with the
CA: GRANTED
o CA found Dy a stranger to the labor case
o Power of NLRC to execute its judgment extends only to
properties unquestionably belonging to judgment debtor,
thus if the sheriff levies upon the assets of a 3rd persion in
which the judgment debtor has no interest, then the sheriff
is acting beyond the limits of his authority
o Ordered the case to be remanded to the trial court for
further proceedings
ISSUE 1

THE DIGEST GROUP | B2018 | AY 2015-2016 I | UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW

Whether or not the CA erred in giving due course to Dys petition

despite its procedural infirmities--YES
HELD

P: appellate court should not have given due course to Dys

petition since the proper remedy was appeal and not certiorari
and that the trial court was correct in dismissing the complaint for
lack of jurisdiction. The complaint was actually in the nature of a
Motion to Quash Writ of Execution and with respect to the acts of
the labor tribunal, a case growing out of a labor dispute, as the
acts complained of were incidents of he execution
Court: it was erroneous of the CA to grant the petition and order
the remand of the case to the trial court for proceedings
CA has jurisdiction to entertain original actions for certiorary
under Rule 65 of Rules of Court, including those in which the
jurisdiction of any lower court is an issue.
o One requisite to a petition for certiorari is that there
is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law from the acts of
the respondent tribunal
o Exception: when the right to appeal has been lost
and where the court has no jurisdiction to issue the
order or decision which is the subject matter of the
remedy
In the instant case, the remedy of appeal from the order of RTC
was available to Dy and it was a plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy and that RTC acted within its jurisdiction

ISSUE 2
Whether or not the trial court had jurisdiction over Dys complaint for
injunction and damagesNO

The rule is that the nature of an action and the subject matter, as
well as the court or agency of the government has jurisdiction
over the same, are determined by the material allegations of the
complaint in relation to the law involved and the character of the
reliefs prayed for
Dy challenged the legality of the writ and also attacks the validity
of the decision of the LA; thus it is a case properly within the
jurisdiction of the LA and not the trial court since the subject
matter of the complaint is an incident of a labor case
Jurisprudence confirms the rule that regular courts have no
jurisdiction to act on labor cases and it pertains exclusively to
the proper labor official concerned under the DOLE

DISPO
Petition Granted CA decision REVERSED AND SET ASIDE
NOTES

THE DIGEST GROUP | B2018 | AY 2015-2016 I | UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW