EMELINDA SUNGA, SUSANA GERONIMO, ESPERANZA SANTIAGO, PERLA BUSTOS, CARMELA CRUZ, ESTRELLA CANILANG, ANABELLE DAQUIZ, LOIDA TINALIGA, AND RUEL MARTINEZ, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL…

This is a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
questioning certain resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC), to wit:  1) a restraining order
dated April 30, 1987, staying the execution of the labor arbiter’s decision in
NLRC-NCR Case No. 6-2423-86 pending resolution of the petition for relief from
judgment; 2) resolution dated November 5, 1987, granting the motion of herein
petitioners to compel the posting of bond thus ordering ACD Computer Services
and Ma. Rosario Cabel to post a bond in the amount of
P107,085.17; and 3) resolution dated January 28, 1988, reducing the bond
required to be posted to P5,000.00 upon a motion for reconsideration filed by
ACD Computer Services and Cabel.

The following facts led to the filing of the present petition.

On June 20, 1986,
herein petitioners filed before the NLRC a complaint against ACD Computer
Services and Ma. Rosario A. Cabel
for illegal dismissal and non-payment of certain benefits.  The case was docketed as NLRC-NCR Case No.
6-2423-86.

On February 18, 1987,
the labor arbiter rendered a decision sustaining the petitioners’
position.  The dispositive
portion of the decision reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the respondents are hereby
ordered to pay complainants the total sum of P111,097.32 as itemized in the
body of this Decision and P11,109.70, or 10% of the total amount as attorney’s fees.

On March 19, 1987,
the labor arbiter, upon motion of the petitioners, issued a writ of execution
to enforce said decision.

The following day, the sheriff served a notice of garnishment to
the Commercial Bank of Manila after
which the total amount of P15,031.85 was
garnished.  This amount has already been
turned over to the petitioners.

On March 31, 1987,
a levy on execution was made upon
the properties found in the respondents’ office premises.

ACD Group Inc., an American firm based in California, U.S.A.,
through its Chairman, Alfredo Dulay filed a
third-party claim in the NLRC case on the ground that it is the real owner of
the computers levied upon and scheduled for auction on April 10, 1987.  This third-party claim was denied in an order
dated April 14, 1987.

On April 1, 1987,
ACD Computer Services and Ma. Rosario A. Cabal filed before the NLRC a
petition for relief from judgment in NLRC – NCR Case No. 6-2423-86 with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or
restraining order.  This petition was
docketed as Injunction Case No. 1402.

The NLRC then issued the questioned resolutions incidental to
Injunction Case No. 1402.

On December 9, 1987, the petitioners filed before the NLRC a motion to dismiss
and/or answer to the petition on the ground that a petition for relief is not a remedy granted
under the Labor Code and NLRC Rules.

Without waiting for the NLRC’s
resolution on their motion to dismiss, the petitioners filed the present
petition.

This petition seeks to annul the three NLRC resolutions, to
prohibit the NLRC from taking further proceedings in Injunction Case No. 1402
and to direct the NLRC to dismiss said injunction case and to order the full
execution of the decision in NLRC – NCR Case No. 6-2423-86.

Atty. Luis A. Paredes, counsel for ACD
Computer Services and Ma. Rosario A. Cabel, was served copies of all resolutions of the Court in this
case.  On June 27, 1988, he filed a manifestation stating he was no
longer their counsel but without any indication as to the name of new counsel nor the advice he gave to his clients.  Considering that the only issue is the
validity of the questioned resolutions of the NLRC and that the various aspects
pro and con of the petition have been fully discussed by the petitioners’ counsel
on one side and the Solicitor General on the other, the Court resolved to
decide this petition without any further delay. 
The various pleadings and annexes give a full picture of what was before
the public respondent.  What is involved
here is an unreasonable delay in the execution of a final and partially
executed judgment.

The Solicitor General recommends that the petition be dismissed
for being premature, applying the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies.  He further stressed the
jurisdiction of the NLRC and its exercise of sound discretion.

However, we gave due course to this petition on a finding, among
others, that the instant case falls under the exceptions to the general rule on exhaustion of administrative
remedies.

As held in the
case of Rocamora v. RTC-Cebu (Branch VIII), (G.R. No. 65037, November 23, 1988):

But the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not an
inflexible rule.  In fact, it yields to many accepted exceptions. 
As we have noted in a number of cases, exhaustion is not necessary where
inter alia there is estoppel
on the part of the party invoking the doctrine; where the challenged administrative act is
patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction; where there is unreasonable delay or
official action that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant; where the
amount involved is relatively small so as to make the rule impractical and
oppressive; where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately
have to be decided anyway by the courts of justice.

At least two of these exceptions are present in the instant case.

There had been no action on the challenge to the petition for relief from judgment for
almost a
year.  This is considerably long
considering that the labor arbiter’s decision had already become final and in
fact has been partially executed.  The
main case had been filed as early as June
20, 1986.

Moreover, this case involving the propriety of a remedy and the
suspension of an execution would only be further delayed if we remand it to the
NLRC, only to have any decision raised again before this Court.

Considering that all the relevant facts are before this Court, we
resolve to discuss and settle the dispute with finality.  (See Tejones v. Gironella, G.R. No. 35506, March 21, 1988; Quillian v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 55457, January 20, 1989).

ACD Computer Services and Cabel filed a
petition for relief from judgment on the ground that they were denied due process, particularly that they were not given “a more
definite statement of the specifications of the offenses allegedly
committed by them” and the
complainants’ position paper was not furnished to them.  They
also raise the long discredited argument that appeal was not timely made
as the filing clerk of the respondents’ counsel misplaced the labor arbiter’s
decision.

A careful examination
of the records shows that there is no proper case for annulment of
judgment.  (See
Filipino Pipe Workers Union (NLU) v. Batario, G.R.
No. 75851, July 29, 1988).

On the contrary, the records clearly show that ACD Computer
Services and Ms. Cabel have never been denied
“their day in court”.  Instead,
they have cleverly used unmeritorious procedural
technicalities to delay the execution
of a valid judgment.

The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be
heard.  (Planters
Products, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 78524, January
20, 1989).

ACD Computer Services and Cabel were
given ample opportunity to
present their side of the labor dispute. 
They received an order from the labor arbiter requiring them to submit a
position paper on or before the scheduled hearing on August 28, 1986. 
They asked for the resetting of the hearing to September 12, 1986 and extension of time within
which to submit their position paper. 
This extension was granted.

On September 12, 1986,
they once more moved for a postponement. 
This was again granted but they were given only up to October 9, 1986 within which to
submit their position paper.

On October 9, 1986, the respondents’
counsel failed to appear in the hearing. 
Moreover, no position paper was submitted by them at any time on or
before the said date.  The case was then
deemed submitted for resolution.

There is nothing in the records to show that they requested for
“a more definite statement of the specifications of the offenses allegedly committed by
them”.  The only pleadings they
filed were motions for postponements and extensions of time to file a position
paper.  Despite the granting of these
motions, they neither attended the hearing nor submitted a position paper.

The only time they acted upon the case was when the decision had
already become final and partially executed.

As held in the case of Filipino Pipe Workers
(NLU) v. Batario, (supra):

x x
x We express displeasure over this last ditch attempt of the Company
to thwart the enforcement of the
decision of the labor arbiter which had become final and executory
as early as September 26, 1983.

In the instant case, the decision of the labor arbiter had
already been partially executed when
the bank account was garnished and the proceeds were turned over to herein petitioners.

We see no need to discuss the applicability before the National
Labor Relations Commission of the Rules of Court on a petition for relief from
judgment.  We note that the NLRC treated
the petition as one to enjoin
the enforcement of an allegedly invalid
order of execution, an alleged “aberration” challenged as both unreasonable and with no legal
basis.  Faced with
twenty one (21) pages of carefully crafted allegations and arguments in the petition of ACD Computer Services and
Ma. Rosario A. Cabel, the public respondent decided to look into the case.  The NLRC was initially correct but it
committed the reversible error of tolerating an unreasonable delay in the
enforcement of a judgment unquestionably final and where there had already been
partial execution, thus compelling labor to come to this Court.  We are constrained to exercise our power to
issue writs of
certiorari.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED.  The National Labor Relations Commission is
directed to dismiss Injunction Case No. 1402 and to order the full execution of
the decision in NLRC-NCR Case No. 6-2423-86 without any further delays.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., (Chairman), Feliciano, Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concur.