FERNANDO JUAN, PROPRIETOR OF THE BUSINESS ENTITY UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF “FOTO ME”, PETITIONER, VS. CELSO MUSÑGI AND LABOR ARBITER EDUARDO G. MAGNO, RESPONDENTS.

THIS IS A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
AND PROHIBITION WITH PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SEEKING:  (1)
TO ANNUL AND SET ASIDE PUBLIC
RESPONDENT’S ORDER DATED JULY 22, 1986 AND HIS WRIT OF EXECUTION OF SEPTEMBER 25, 1986; AND, (2)
TO ENJOIN HIM FROM FURTHER PROCEEDING
WITH NLRC-NCR CASE No. 11-6791-82, ENTITLED “CELSO P. MUSÑGI VS. FOTO ME AND/OR
FERNANDO U. JUAN.”

THE DISPOSITIVE PORTION
OF THE ORDER OF JULY 22, 1986 (ROLLO, P. 29), READS AS FOLLOWS:

“WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, THE RESPONDENTS ARE HEREBY
ORDERED TO DEPOSIT THE SUM OF P49,626.40 WITHIN SEVEN
(7) WORKING DAYS FROM RECEIPT HEREOF WITH THE ARBITRATION BRANCH, NLRC-NCR
SPECIFICALLY WITH MS. NORMA JALALAIN, THE BONDED DISBURSING OFFICER.”

THE WRIT OF EXECUTION DATED SEPTEMBER 25, 1986 (ROLLO, P. 30) GAVE THE DEPUTY SHERIFF,
NLRC-NCR, ARBITRATION BRANCH THE
FOLLOWING ORDER:

“NOW, THEREFORE, YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED TO PROCEED WITHOUT
DELAY TO THE PREMISES OF RESPONDENT FIRM LOCATED AT 312 LITTON BLDG., SHAW
BOULEVARD, MANDALUYONG, METRO MANILA, TO REINSTATE COMPLAINANT TO HIS FORMER OR
EQUIVALENT POSITION THEREAT AND TO COLLECT FROM RESPONDENT CORPORATION THE
AMOUNT OF FORTY NINE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED TWENTY SIX PESOS AND FORTY CENTAVOS
(P49,626.40) AND TURN OVER THE SAID AMOUNT TO THIS OFFICE FOR RELEASE TO
COMPLAINANT, ALLOWING PARTIES AND/OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE TO OBSERVE ALL STEPS
OF YOUR PROCEEDINGS IF THEY SO DESIRE AND WITH AND ADMONITION THAT YOU ARE NOT
AUTHORIZED TO SETTLE AND/OR NEGOTIATE THE SETTLEMENT OF THE AWARD, OR DIRECTLY
RELEASE FOR WHATEVER REASON(S), THE PROCEEDS OF THIS WRIT TO COMPLAINANT AND/OR
HIS REPRESENTATIVE(S).

“IN CASE YOU FAIL TO COLLECT SAID AMOUNT IN CASH FROM
RESPONDENT, YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO CAUSE THE SATISFACTION OF THE SAME OUT
OF THE MOVABLE GOODS OR CHATTELS OR IN THE ABSENCE THEREOF, FROM RESPONDENT’S
IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, NOT EXEMPT FROM EXECUTION, FURNISHING THE UNDERSIGNED WITH
COPIES OF NOTICES AND/OR LETTERS YOU MAY ISSUE IN CONNECTION WITH THE WRIT,
EXCEPT ORDERS FOR RELEASE WHICH SHOULD BEAR THE SIGNATURE OF THE UNDERSIGNED.

“FURTHER, YOU ARE DIRECTED TO RETURN THIS WRIT WITHIN FIFTEEN
(15) DAYS FROM RECEIPT OF THE SAME SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH YOUR FORMAL REPORT.  YOU ARE DIRECTED TO RENDER PROGRESS REPORT ON
YOUR PROCEEDINGS FROM TIME TO TIME
AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE UNDERSIGNED.

“YOU MAY COLLECT YOUR FEES FROM THE RESPONDENTS.”

THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PRIVATE RESPONDENT CELSO P. MUSÑGI FILED A CASE AGAINST HIS
EMPLOYER, FOTO ME AND/OR FERNANDO JUAN, FOR
ILLEGAL DEDUCTION AND UNJUST DISMISSAL, DOCKETED AS NLRC-NCR-CASE No.
11-6791-82.  ON JULY 3, 1984
RESPONDENT LABOR ARBITER PORFIRIO VILLANUEVA RENDERED A DECISION THEREON, DIRECTING PETITIONER TO REINSTATE PRIVATE
RESPONDENT WITH FULL BACKWAGES.  ON JULY 20, 1984 PETITIONER FILED HIS
APPEAL WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC).  ON NOVEMBER 20, 1985 THE NLRC
PROMULGATED A RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE LABOR ARBITER (ROLLO,
PP. 5, 90-91).

THEREAFTER THE RECORDS OF THE CASE MYSTERIOUSLY DISAPPEARED
(ROLLO, P. 91) AND HAD TO BE RECONSTITUTED. 
PETITIONER FAILED TO APPEAR IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE RECONSTITUTION OF
RECORDS BEFORE THE NLRC DESPITE
DUE NOTICE FOR THE HEARINGS HELD ON MARCH
19, 1986 AND APRIL 8, 1986
(ROLLO, P. 28).

ON APRIL 8, 1986,
THE NLRC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ENDORSED THE RECONSTITUTED RECORDS TO THE EXECUTIVE
LABOR ARBITER OF THE NATIONAL
CAPITAL REGION, FOR APPROPRIATE ACTION (ROLLO, PP. 92-93).  UPON RECEIPT OF THE RECONSTITUTED RECORDS THE
THEN LABOR ARBITER FORTHWITH ORDERED THE COMPUTATION OF THE AWARD WHICH
COMPUTATION WAS SUBMITTED ON APRIL 10, 1986 BY THE ACTING CHIEF, RESEARCH AND
INFORMATION UNIT AND BY THE
SENIOR LABOR ARBITRATION ANALYST OF THE NLRC, NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION.  THE CASE WAS AFTERWARDS FORWARDED TO LABOR
ARBITER PORFIRIO VILLANUEVA FOR EXECUTION (ROLLO, P. 93).

ON APRIL 14, 1986 THE
COMPLAINANT IN THE LABOR CASE (PRIVATE RESPONDENT HEREIN) FILED A MOTION TO
DEPOSIT THE AMOUNT OF P49,626.40 DUE FROM PETITIONER, AS SHOWN BY THE
COMPUTATION.  PRIVATE RESPONDENT PRAYED
THAT A WRIT OF EXECUTION BE ISSUED SHOULD PETITIONER FAIL TO DEPOSIT THE SAID
AMOUNT WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS.  ON APRIL 15, 1985, ATTY. CONSTANTINO B. DE JESUS FILED HIS ENTRY OF
APPEARANCE WITH MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION OR RESPONSIVE
PLEADING, PRAYING FOR A PERIOD UNTIL MAY
30, 1986 WITHIN WHICH TO FILE HIS OPPOSITION
TO THE MOTION FOR DEPOSIT.

THE MOTION WAS SET FOR HEARING ON APRIL 28, 1986 WITH
NOTICE SENT TO HEREIN PETITIONER RECEIVED BY THE NEW COUNSEL ON APRIL 23, 1986 AND BY PETITIONER HIMSELF ON
APRIL 24, 1986.  ON THE DAY OF THE HEARING PETITIONER
THROUGH COUNSEL FILED A MOTION TO DEFER THE HEARING AND TO RESET THE SAME TO JUNE 1, 1986.  THE
HEARING WAS, HOWEVER, RESET TO MAY 9, 1986.  ON THE DAY OF THE HEARING, LABOR ARBITER
PORFIRIO VILLANUEVA WAS ON LEAVE AND COUNSLE FOR HEREIN PETITIONER WAS NOT
AROUND.  PRIVATE RESPONDENT REQUESTED FOR
A TRANSFER OF THE CASE TO THE EXECUTIVE LABOR ARBITER.  THE CASE WAS THEREUPON ASSIGNED TO LABOR
ARBITER RUBEN ALBERTO BUT WHEN THE NLRC
WAS REORGANIZED IT WAS
ASSIGNED TO HEREIN PUBLIC RESPONDENT EDUARDO G. MAGNO.

HEARING ON THE MOTION TO DEPOSIT WAS THEREAFTER SET BY PUBLIC
RESPONDENT TO JUNE 16, 1986.  DESPITE DUE NOTICE SERVED ON PETITIONER ON JUNE 13, 1986, NEITHER PETITIONER NOR
HIS COUNSEL APPEARED.  ON THE OTHER HAND,
PRIVATE RESPONDENT AND HIS COUNSEL APPEARED AND INSISTED THAT THE MOTION BE
CONSIDERED SUBMITTED FOR RESOLUTION (ROLLO, P. 94).

PUBLIC RESPONDENT RESET THE HEARING TO JULY 15, 1986 WITH DUE NOTICE TO BOTH
PARTIES.  ON THAT DATE PETITIONER THROUGH
COUNSEL FILED A MANIFESTATION/OPPOSITION/MOTION ALLEGING THAT THEY ARE NOT
AWARE OF ANY DECISION OF THE NLRC DATED NOVEMBER 30, 1985 AND PRAYING THAT THE MOTION TO DEPOSIT
BE DENIED (ROLLO, PP. 6, 95).

ON JULY 22, 1986,
PUBLIC RESPONDENT ISSUED THE QUESTIONED ORDER GRANTING THE MOTION TO DEPOSIT,
ON THE PREMISE THAT “THE RESOLUTION OF THE SECOND DIVISION OF THE NLRC IS
NOW FINAL AND EXECUTORY, SO IT IS A MATTER OF RIGHT OF THE COMPLAINANT TO REQUEST
FOR THE EXECUTION OF SUCH AWARD” (ROLLO, P. 29).

ON SEPTEMBER 25, 1986,
THE CORRESPONDING WRIT OF EXECUTION WAS ISSUED BY PUBLIC RESPONDENT (ROLLO, P.
30).

THIS PETITION WAS FILED WITH THE COURT ON OCTOBER 9, 1986
(ROLLO, P. 2).  ON OCTOBER 10, 1986 THE SECOND DIVISION OF THIS COURT RESOLVED WITHOUT GIVING
DUE COURSE TO THE PETITION TO
REQUIRE THE RESPONDENTS TO COMMENT
THEREON AND TO ISSUE A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (ROLLO,
P. 44) ENJOINING PUBLIC RESPONDENT FROM ENFORCING AND/OR CARRYING OUT HIS ORDER DATED JULY 22, 1986 AND THE WRIT OF EXECUTION DATED SEPTEMBER
25, 1986 BOTH ISSUED IN CASE No. NLRC-NCR-11-6791-82 ENTITLED MUSÑGI VS. FOTO ME AND/OR FERNANDO JUAN,
OF THE NLRC, NRC, MINISTRY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, UNTIL FURTHER ORDERS
FROM THE COURT (ROLLO, P. 45).

ON OCTOBER 16, 1986, PETITIONER FILED WITH THE COURT AN URGENT
MOTION TO DISSOLVE GARNISHMENT ON ITS PHILIPPINE
SAVING BANK ACCOUNT, LACSON UNDERPASS BRANCH, QUIAPO, MANILA IN THE AMOUNT OF P49,626.40 (ROLLO, P. 49).

ON OCTOBER 29, 1986, PRIVATE RESPONDENT FILED WITH THE COURT, HIS COMMENT
INTERPOSING NO OBJECTION TO THE FORWARDING OF THE RECORDS FROM
PUBLIC RESPONDENT TO THE NLRC
FOR APPROPRIATE SERVICE OF THE COMMISSION’S DECISION ON PETITIONER, AS WELL AS
FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING A FULL RECONSTITUTION OF THE RECORDS OF THE CASE, IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THE
DISPOSITION OF THE CASE AND SO THAT JUSTICE MAY THEREBY BE SERVED (ROLLO, P. 53).  THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FILED ITS COMMENT ON NOVEMBER 4, 1986, STATING THAT HE IS
UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE POSITION ADOPTED BY PUBLIC RESPONDENT
IN HIS ORDER DATED JULY 22, 1986 AS WELL AS THE WRIT OF EXECUTION
DATED SEPTEMBER 25, 1986.  CONVERSELY, HE IS, IN EFFECT, IN AGREEMENT WITH THE PETITIONER THAT WITHOUT SERVICE OF A COPY OF THE NLRC
RESOLUTION TO THE LATTER, THERE CAN BE NO FINALITY.  HENCE THE ISSUANCE OF THE CHALLENGED ORDER
AND WRIT OF EXECUTION IS
PREMATURE.  ACCORDINGLY, HE RECOMMENDS
THAT THE PETITION BE GIVEN DUE COURSE (ROLLO, P. 57).  ON THE SAME DATE THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FILED
A MANIFESTATION AND MOTION RECOMMENDING THAT PUBLIC RESPONDENT BE MADE TO
PREPARE AND FILE HIS OWN COMMENT ON THE PETITION (ROLLO, P. 61).

ON MARCH 9, 1987, THE
COURT RESOLVED TO GIVE DUE COURSE TO THE PETITION (ROLLO, P. 64).

ON MARCH 30,
1987, THE OFFICE OF THE
SOLICITOR GENERAL FILED ANOTHER MANIFESTATION AND MOTION ASKING TO BE EXCUSED FROM FILING THE REQUIRED MEMORANDUM BUT THAT THE COMMENT FILED ON NOVEMBER 4, 1986 BE CONSIDERED AS ITS MEMORANDUM (ROLLO, P. 65).

ON MARCH 31, 1987, PRIVATE
RESPONDENT FILED ITS OPPOSITION TO THE URGENT MOTION TO DISSOLVE GARNISHMENT (ROLLO, P. 67).

PUBLIC RESPONDENT FILED HIS COMMENT ON APRIL 27, 1987 (ROLLO, P. 90); WHILE PRIVATE
RESPONDENT MANIFESTED TO THE COURT ON MAY 7,
1987 THAT IT WILL NO LONGER SUBMIT ANY MEMORANDUM BUT IN LIEU THEREOF IS ADOPTING THE COMMENT OF
PUBLIC RESPONDENT AS PRIVATE RESPONDENT’S MEMORANDUM (ROLLO, P. 113).  PETITIONER FILED HIS MEMORANDUM ON MAY 25,
1987 (ROLLO, P. 118).

THE MAIN ISSUE IN THIS PETITION IS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER
OR NOT THE RESOLUTION OF THE NLRC
PROMULGATED ON NOVEMBER 30, 1985 BECAME FINAL AND EXECUTORY DESPITE
THE LACK OF NOTICE THEREOF TO PETITIONER.

THE ANSWER IS IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.

UNDER ARTICLE 223 OF
THE LABOR CODE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE
DECISIONS, AWARDS OR ORDERS OF A LABOR
ARBITER CANNOT BE DECLARED FINAL AND EXECUTORY UPON THE MERE ISSUANCE
THEREOF.  A PERIOD OF TEN (10) DAYS
FROM RECEIPT OF ANY ORDER IS GRANTED TO EITHER OR TO BOTH PARTIES INVOLVED TO
APPEAL TO THE NLRC (NAGKAHIUSANG
MANGGAGAWA SA CUISON-NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR VS. LIBRON, 124 SCRA 448 [1983]).  THE SAME CANNOT BE SAID, HOWEVER,
ABOUT THE DECISION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION ITSELF FOR UNDER
THE SAME ARTICLE IT IS PROVIDED,
THAT “THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY, EVEN
PENDING APPEAL, UNLESS STAYED BY AN ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR SPECIAL
REASONS.” WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY DEFINES
“IMMEDIATELY” AS “WITHOUT
INTERVAL OF TIME”; “WITHOUT
DELAY.”

IT WILL BE NOTED HOWEVER THAT SECTION 2 OF RULE XI OF THE RULES OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
PROVIDES THAT THE DECISIONS, RESOLUTIONS OR ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION SHALL
BECOME EXECUTORY AFTER TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS FROM RECEIPT OF THE SAME, BUT
SUCH RULE CANNOT PREVAIL OVER THE ABOVE-CITED PROVISION OF THE LABOR CODE.  ARTICLE 7 OF THE CIVIL CODE EMBODIES THE
BASIC PRINCIPLE THAT ADMINISTRATIVE OR EXECUTIVE ACTS, ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
SHALL BE VALID ONLY WHEN THEY ARE NOT CONTRARY TO THE LAWS OR THE
CONSTITUTION.  IN FURTHER AMPLIFICATION THIS COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY RULED THAT ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS UNDER
LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY BY A PARTICULAR DEPARTMENT MUST BE IN HARMONY WITH THE
PROVISION OF THE LAW, AND SHOULD BE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CARRYING INTO EFFECT ITS GENERAL PROVISIONS.  BY SUCH REGULATION, OF COURSE, THE LAW ITSELF
CANNOT BE EXTENDED.  AN ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCY CANNOT AMEND AN ACT OF CONGRESS (PEOPLE VS. MACEREN,
79 SCRA 450 [1977]).  UNDER THIS
PRINCIPLE, THE COURT RULED IN INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND AMERICA
EMPLOYEE’S UNION (IBAAEU) VS. INCIONG,
THAT SEC. 2, RULE IV, BOOK III
OF THE IMPLEMENTING RULES AND POLICY INSTRUCTION NO. 9 ISSUED BY THE
THEN SECRETARY OF LABOR ARE NULL AND VOID SINCE IN THE GUISE OF CLARIFYING THE
LABOR CODE’S PROVISIONS ON HOLIDAY PAY, THEY IN EFFECT AMENDED THEM BY
ENLARGING THE SCOPE OF THEIR EXCLUSIONS. 
(132 SCRA 663 [1984]).

MOREOVER, IT IS NOT TRUE THAT A COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE
NLRC PROMULGATED ON NOVEMBER 20, 1985
AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE LABOR ARBITER WAS NOT SERVED ON PETITIONER.

FROM THE RECONSTITUTED RECORDS OF THIS CASE IT APPEARS THAT THE
BAILIFF WHO DELIVERED THE COPY TO THE OFFICE OF PETITIONER’S COUNSEL OF RECORD
CERTIFIED UNDER OATH THAT HE IN FACT SERVED THE SAME ON DECEMBER 9, 1985, BUT THE EMPLOYEE PRESENT IN
THE OFFICE OF PETITIONER’S COUNSEL OF RECORD REFUSED TO RECEIVE THE SAME FOR
THE REASON THAT ATTY. IÑIGO S. FOJAS WAS NO LONGER THE COUNSEL OF PETITIONER
(ROLLO, P. 107).  HOWEVER, NO NOTICE OF
WITHDRAWAL OR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL WAS SHOWN THEREBY YIELDING TO THE RULE
THAT NOTICE TO THE COUNSEL OF RECORD IS, FOR ALL PURPOSES, NOTICE TO THE
CLIENT.  (FRANCISCO VS.
PUNO, 108 SCRA 427 [1981]).  SUCH NOTICE IS PROPERLY SENT TO THE ADDRESS
OF THE COUNSEL OF RECORD IN THE ABSENCE OF
DUE NOTICE TO THE COURT OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS (PLDT VS. NLRC, 128 SCRA
402 [1984]), AND THE DATE OF RECEIPT IS CONSIDERED THE STARTING POINT FROM
WHICH THE PERIOD OF APPEAL PRESCRIBED BY LAW SHALL BEGIN TO RUN (CUBAR VS. MENDOZA, 120 SCRA 768 [1983]).

STILL FURTHER, IN ONE OF THE HEARINGS FOR THE RECONSTITUTION OF
THE RECORDS ATTY. EMMANUEL D. LAUREA
APPEARED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER.  HE WAS
PROVIDED WITH A XEROX COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE LABOR ARBITER AND THE NLRC
RESOLUTION DATED NOVEMBER 20, 1985
SUBMITTED BY PRIVATE RESPONDENT (ROLLO,
P. 92).  IN THE CASE OF CITY OF LAOAG VS.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (89 SCRA 207 [1979]) WHERE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
ACTUALLY OBTAINED A COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION FROM ITS SECRETARY
AND ON THE BASIS OF SAID COPY, HE WAS ABLE TO PREPARE THE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION THE COURT RULED THAT THE COPY OF THE DECISION OBTAINED BY
COUNSEL SERVES AS A SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF NOTICE OF
JUDGMENT.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, THIS PETITION IS HEREBY
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF MERIT AND THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER ISSUED BY THE
COURT ON OCTOBER 10, 1986 ENJOINING THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER OF PUBLIC
RESPONDENT, DATED JULY 21, 1986 AND THE
WRIT OF EXECUTION DATED SEPTEMBER 5, 1986
BOTH ISSUED IN CASE NO. NLRC-NCR-11-6791-82
OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, NCR, MINISTRY OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT, IS PERMANENTLY LIFTED.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, C.J., Narvasa,
Cruz, and Gancayco,
JJ., concur.