OLIVIA SEVILLA, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC), THIRD DIVISION AND BALAGTAS CREDIT COOPERATIVE AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INC., RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Revised Rules of Court to nullify the Resolution dated October 30, 1992 of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC Case No. L-000658, which
affirmed the Order of the Labor Arbiter in NLRC Case No. RAB-III-12-0721-88
denying petitioner’s motion for her reinstatement and the payment of her back
wages.

I

Petitioner was employed as general manager/accountant of private
respondent, a nonstock, nonprofit cooperative. When she was separated from work, she filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal with the NLRC, Regional Arbitration Branch III at San Fernando,
Pampanga (Case No. RAB-III-12-0721-88). A decision was rendered by Labor Arbiter Oswald Lorenzo ruling that the
dismissal of petitioner was illegal and ordering her reinstatement with full
back salaries and other benefits.

Private respondent appealed the decision of the Labor Arbiter to
the NLRC (NLRC Case No. L-000658). During the pendency of the appeal, two events having bearing on the Labor
Arbiter’s decision, occurred. The first
event was the issuance by the Labor Arbiter of an order for the immediate
reinstatement of petitioner, which was implemented on September 18, 1989. The second event was the holding by the
members of private respondent of their annual general meeting on January 31,
1990, and the reorganizational meeting of the Board of Directors of private
respondent on February 5, 1990. At that
reorganizational meeting, the Board of Directors resolved to declare the term
of office of petitioner as general manager/accountant terminated and to select
her successor.

On March 13, 1990, the NLRC (Third Division), oblivious of the
second dismissal of petitioner, affirmed the decision of Labor Arbiter Lorenzo,
except for the award of exemplary damages which was deleted. Its motion for reconsideration having been
denied, private respondent filed a petition for certiorari before us to
set aside the NLRC resolution (G.R. No. 96341). When asked to comment, petitioner informed us of her second
dismissal. In our Resolution dated July
8, 1991, we dismissed the petition of private respondent.

On July 3, 1991, petitioner filed her first motion for the
issuance of a writ of execution to implement the decision of Labor Arbiter
Lorenzo. On February 16, 1992,
petitioner filed a second motion for the issuance of the same writ. As no action was taken on the two motions,
petitioner filed a third motion for issuance of the writ of execution.

On July 18, 1992, Labor Arbiter Ariel C. Santos issued an order,
dismissing petitioner’s third motion for reinstatement “for lack of
merit.”

From the Labor Arbiter, petitioner went directly to us by filing
a petition for certiorari (G.R. No. 109516). On July 22, 1992, we resolved “to DENY the petition for certiorari
for being premature. The petition
should have been filed in the National Labor Relations Commission.” We
also denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

Meanwhile, on July 3, 1992, petitioner filed an appeal with the
NLRC, seeking the reversal of the order dated June 18, 1992 of Labor Arbiter
Santos in NLRC Case No. RAB-III­ 12-0721-88. The appeal was docketed as CA L-000658.

On October 30, 1992, the NLRC rendered a decision sustaining the
order appealed from, holding:

“Complainant’s second dismissal may be treated in a separate
action. While it would appear that her
dismissal after reinstatement was questionable and which may be the subject of
contempt, this should have been raised by complainant when respondent’s Motion
for Reconsideration of the Labor Arbiter’s Decision was pending before the
Commission. Complainant was terminated
for the second time on February 5, 1990. Yet, during the pendency of respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration and
which was resolved in November 1990, complainant failed to raise this fact and
remained silent on the matter. Hence,
we cannot presume that the second dismissal is a continuation of the first or
is an attempt to circumvent the Resolution of the Commission or RA 6715”
(Rollo, pp. 63-64).

Failing to secure a reconsideration of the decision of the NLRC,
petitioner filed the instant petition.

II

We dismiss the petition.

In her petition for certiorari, petitioner asserts that
the NLRC: (1) violated Section 12 of
R.A. No. 6715; (2) violated the Resolution of the Supreme Court, which
dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by the private respondent;
(3) failed to resolve the issue of her claim for back salaries from
petitioner’s second dismissal; and (4) dismissed petitioner’s appeal on mere
technicality.

Petitioner’s contentions are without merit.

It is undisputed that petitioner was actually reinstated to her
former position in compliance with the Labor Arbiter’s order. It is therefore clear that her second
dismissal was separate and distinct from the first.

The NLRC cannot be said to have disregarded, much less violated,
our Resolution in G.R. No. 96341 when it denied petitioner’s motions for the
issuance of a writ of execution. The
said Resolution referred to the decision of the NLRC on the first dismissal.

Labor Arbiter Santos was correct in denying the third motion for
reinstatement filed by petitioner because what she should have filed was a new
complaint based on the second dismissal. The second dismissal gave rise to a new cause of action. Inasmuch as no new complaint was filed, the
Labor Arbiter could not have ruled on the legality of the second dismissal.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED
for failure to show grave abuse of discretion on the part of public respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, and Kapunan, JJ., concur.