LEONARDO MADRIGAL, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. CITY SHERIFF OF MANILA, CITY OF MANILA AND VALERIANO C. BUENO, RESPONDENTS AND APPELLEES. VALERIANO C. BUENO, PETITIONER, VS. LE…

G. R. No. L-17766 is an ordinary appeal from a decision of the Court of First
Instance of Manila dismissing Special Civil Case No. 43102 of said court for
mandamus and damages, whereas G. R. No. L-18486 is an appeal by certiorari from
a decision of the Court of Appeals.

On September 23, 1958, Hon. Jose Sanchez, as Associate Commissioner of the
Workmen’s Compensation rendered a decision in W.C. Case No. R03-30881 thereof,
entitled “Leonardo Madrigal vs. Valeriano Bueno”, sentencing the latter to pay
the sum of P4,000 to Madrigal, as compensation for injuries sustained by him, on
May 4, 1954, while allegedly under Bueno’s employment. Acting on behalf of the
Commission, said Associate Commissioner issued, on October 6, 1959, a writ for
the execution of said decision. Before the Sheriff of Manila could enforce said
writ, or on November 6, 1959, Bueno filed with the Court of First Instance of
Manila a petition for certiorari and prohibition—which was docketed as Special
Civil Case No. 41883, entitled “Valeriano Bueno vs. Leonardo Madrigal, Hon. Jose
Sanchez and the Sheriff of Manila”—for the annulment of “all previous
proceedings” in said W.C. Case No. R03-30881. In due course, this petition for
certiorari and prohibition was, on February 8, 1960, dismissed by said court,
with double costs, whereupon Bueno appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No.
27192-R), which, in a decision promulgated on March 16, 1961, affirmed the
action taken by the lower court. Case G. R. No. L-18486 is the appeal by
certiorari taken by Bueno from said decision.

Meanwhile, or on February 15, 1960, an alias writ of execution of said
decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission had been issued by the same.
Although some properties had been levied upon in pursuance of said alias writ of
execution, the Sheriff of Manila refused to proceed with the sale of such
properties, owing to the pendency of said Special Civil Case No. 41883. Hence,
Madrigal instituted the present action in the Court of First Instance of Manila
(Civil Case No. 43012 thereof) against said officer and Bueno, to compel the
former to proceed with the aforementioned sale, and to recover from both moral
damages (P7,000.00), corrective and exemplary damages (P5,000.00) and attorney’s
fees (P5,000.00). After appropriate proceedings, said court rendered judgment
dismissing the case without costs. Hence, the appeal taken by Madrigal in G. R.
No. L-17766. On Subsequent motion of Bueno, and upon the filing of a P200.00
bond, we issued therein a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the Sheriff
from proceeding with the sale above referred to.

Madrigal maintains in G. R. No. L-17766 that it is the ministerial duty of
the Sheriff to comply with the aforementioned alias writ of execution, there
being, when this case was initiated in the lower court, no judicial order
restraining the enforcement of said writ. Upon the other hand, respondent
justifies his refusal to execute the same, upon the ground that it is null and
void.

Appellee’s contention in G. R. No. L-17766 is well taken. Pursuant to section
51 of Act No. 3428, an award of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission shall be
enforced by filing1 a certified copy thereof with the court of first instance of
the province in which the accident occurred, whereupon said “court shall render
a decree or judgment in accordance with” said award, which “decree or judgment
shall have the same effect * * * as though” it “had been rendered in a suit duly
heard and tried by the court, except that there shall be no appeal therefrom”.
It is such “decree or judgment” of the court, not the decision or award of the
Workmen’s Compensation Commission, that will eventually be enforced and,
needless to say, the writ for the execution of said judicial decree or judgment
can be issued only by a court of justice, not by said Commission (Potente vs.
Saulog Transit, 105 Phil., 525; A. V. H. Company of the Philippines, vs.
Workmen’s Compensation Commission, L-17502, May 30, 1962). Although the
Reorganization Plan No. 20-A, adopted by the Government Survey and
Reorganization Commission claiming to act under the provisions of Republic Act
No. 997, vests in the Commission the authority to issue said writ of execution,
we have repeatedly held that such grant of authority is beyond the powers
conferred by said Republic Act No. 997, as well as unconstitutional (Pastoral
vs. W.C.C., 112 Phil., 742; Everlasting Pictures, Inc. vs. Fuentes, L-16512,
November 12, 1961; A. V. H. Co. of the PhiMppines vs. W.C.C., supra).
Appeals held, in its decision therein:

Referring now to case G. R. No. L-18486, it appears that petitioner sought
therein to annul the proceedings before the Workmen’s Compensation Commission,
upon the ground that the same had given him no opportunity to defend himself. In
this connection, the Court of Appeals held, in its decision therein:

“Bueno avers that he was not given an opportunity to defend himself before
the Commission. We have scrupulously scrutinized the record, and we find that
Bueno completely disregarded the notices, warnings and requirements of the
Commission. He was duly warned by letter of the Commission dated September 14,
1954 that if he failed to submit the report required of him, the Commission
would have no alternative but to declare him in default. The Commission’s second
communication dated October 25, 1954 was likewise disregarded. Under these
circumstances, the Commission was fully justified in making the award to
Madrigal.

“Although Bueno duly received the decision of the Commission dated September
23, 1958 on September 30, 1958, he did not counter the said decision by way of
either a motion for reconsideration or an appeal therefrom to the Supreme Court
by certiorari. The said decision has become final and executory. Needless
to say, the Commission could thereafter issue a writ of execution to enforce its
decision.”

We are fully in accord with this view of the Court of Appeals, insofar as the
legality of the proceedings in the Workmen’s Compensation Commission leading to
the rendition of the decision thereof is concerned. As above stated, however,
said Commission had no authority to issue the writ of execution
above-mentioned.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from in case G. R. No. L-17766 is hereby
affirmed, and the writ of preliminary injunction therein issued by this Court
made permanent, whereas the decision of the Court of Appeals involved in case G.
R. No. L-18486 is affirmed only insofar as the legality of the decision of the
Workmen’s Compensation Commission is concerned, and modified in all other
respects conformably to our decision in said G. R. No. L-17766, without special
pronouncement as to the costs in this instance. It is so ordered.

Padilla, Labrador, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala,
and Makalintal, JJ., concur.