HON.  ARIEL C.  SANTOS,  AS LABOR ARBITER OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION,  PETITIONER,  VS.  HON.  WILLIAM BAYHON,  AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,  NCR,  BRANCH…

In this petition for certiorari with preliminary
injunction / temporary restraining order ,  Labor Arbiter Ariel C .  Santos  ( herein petitioner )  questions the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court to issue a writ of
preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of the writ of execution in a
labor case ,  and said Judge ‘ s order
dated May 31 ,  1989 citing him  ( petitioner )  for indirect contempt and ordering his arrest
for disobeying the injunction .  {par}

On November 6 ,  1985 ,  a decision was rendered by Labor Arbiter
Ceferina Diosana in NLRC – NCR
Case No .  1 – 313 – 85 entitled ,   “ Kamapi vs .  Poly – Plastic Products and / or Anthony Ching
,  “  in favor of Kamapi .   The decision was affirmed in toto
by the National Labor Relations Commission  ( NLRC )  on August 18 ,  1987 .   After the decision had
become final and executory ,  Kamapi
obtained a writ of execution against the properties ,  consisting of machineries and equipment ,  of Poly – Plastic Products or Anthony Ching .   However ,  respondent Priscilla Carrera filed a third
party claim alleging that Anthony Ching had sold the machinery and pieces of
equipment to her .   Nevertheless ,  the public auction sale proceeded on March 29
,  1988 .   It
was conducted by Deputy Sheriff Jaime Pambuan in the presence of Carrera and
her counsel after the judgment creditor had posted an indemnity bond of P115 , 000
in favor of the deputy sheriff to answer for any
damage that he may incur should it be found later that the third – party claim
is valid and lawful .  {par}

On April 4 ,
 1988 ,  Carrera filed in the Regional Trial Court of
Manila  ( Civil Case No .  88 – 44154 )  her claim to the levied properties and
obtained a temporary restraining order enjoining Labor Arbiter Diosana and NLRC
Deputy Sheriff Pambuan from issuing a certificate of sale over the levied
properties .  {par}

On April 12 ,  1988 ,  Diosana inhibited herself from hearing Carrera
‘ s third – party complaint .   The case
was re – raffled and assigned to Labor Arbiter Ariel Santos .  {par}

During the hearing of the third – party claim by Labor Arbiter
Santos on April 26 ,  1988 ,  Carrera ‘ s counsel ,  Atty .  Nicolas Gerochi ,  Jr .  ,  submitted a xerox copy of the alleged deed of
sale but the petitioner asked to
see the original .   Atty .  Gerochi brought to the May 9 ,  1988 hearing the supposed original copy but upon comparison ,  it was found to be not the original of the
xerox copy that was presented by Atty .  Gerochi .   On May 11 ,  1988 ,  Labor Arbiter Santos issued
an order declaring the xerox copy of the deed of sale fictitious and allowing
the execution to proceed against the properties of Poly – Plastic Products .  {par}

Santos and Pambuan filed a motion to dismiss the
civil case on the ground that the RTC did not have jurisdiction over the labor
case ,  for exclusive jurisdiction is
vested in the NLRC  ( Art .  255 ,  Labor Code )  and no injunction or restraining order may be
issued by any court or entity in a
labor dispute .  {par}

On April 22 ,  1988 ,  Judge William Bayhon of RTC ,  Manila ,  issued an order enjoining Labor Arbiter
Ceferina Diosana and sheriff Jaime Pambuan from enforcing the writ of execution
against the properties claimed by Carrera pending the determination of the
validity of the sale made in her favor by the judgment debtor Poly – Plastic
Products and Anthony Ching .  {par}

On May 13 ,
 1988 ,  Atty
.  Gerochi filed in Civil Case No .  88 – 44154 an urgent omnibus motion praying
that herein petitioner be cited for indirect contempt for disobeying the order
of the court dated April 22 ,  1988 and
to order his arrest .  {par}

On May 31 ,  1989 ,  Judge William Bayhon issued an order declaring
Santos guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of indirect contempt ,  ordering
his immediate arrest ,  sentencing him to
seven  ( 7 )  days in jail ,  and to pay a fine of P1 , 000 with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency .   He
further ordered the return of the machineries
and equipment of Priscilla Carrera .   Santos forthwith elevated the matter to this Court
for review on the ground that Judge Bayhon ‘ s arrest order dated May 31 ,
 1989 is a nullity because Art .  254 of the Labor Code prohibits the issuance
of an injunction or restraining order  “ in
any case involving or growing out of labor disputes x x x except as otherwise provided in Articles 218 and 264 of this
Code .  “  {par}

Article 218 speaks of the power of the Commission to issue an
injunction due to a labor dispute ,  while Art .  264 refers to the power of the same Commission
to issue injunction in case of strikes or lockouts .  {par}

Petitioner alleges further that Judge Bayhon has no jurisdiction
to cite petitioner for contempt ,  for
the case grew out of a labor dispute .  {par}

Respondents ,  on the other
hand ,  claim that Judge Bayhon has
jurisdiction over the third party claim for respondent Carrera was never a
party in the labor dispute between Anthony Ching  ( judgment debtor )  and the members of the Kamapi  ( judgment creditors )  ,  and
she had no employer – employee relationship with any of them .  {par}

The petition has no merit ,  for the power of the NLRC to execute its
judgments extends only to properties unquestionably belonging to the judgment
debtor  ( Special Servicing Corp .  vs .  Centro La Paz
,  121 SCRA 748 )  .  {par}

The general rule that no court has the power to interfere by
injunction with the judgments or decrees of another court with concurrent or
coordinate jurisdiction possessing equal power to grant injunctive relief ,  applies only when no third – party claimant is
involved  ( Traders Royal Bank vs .  Intermediate Appellate Court ,  133 SCRA 142 )  .   When
a third – party ,  or a stranger to the
action ,  asserts a claim over the
property levied upon ,  the claimant may
vindicate his claim by an independent action in the proper civil court which
may stop the executive of the judgment on property not belonging to the
judgment debtor .   The following rulings
of this Court are apropos
:  {par}

 “ When the sheriff ,  acting beyond the bounds of his authority ,  seizes a stranger ‘ s property ,  the writ of injunction ,  which is issued to stop the auction sale of
that property ,  is not an interference
with the writ of execution issued by another court because the writ of
execution was improperly implemented by the sheriff .   Under that writ ,  he could attach the property of the judgment
debtor .   He is not authorized to levy upon the property of the third
claimant .  “   ( National
Mines and Allied Workers Union vs .  Vera ,  133 SCRA 259 .  )  {par}

 “ There is no question that
the writ of execution was issued against the judgment debtors  ( the Former Owner )  in Civil Case No .  Q – 29325 ,  Court of First Instance  ( now Regional Trial Court )  Branch IV of Quezon City
.   However ,  what was levied upon by the Sheriff are the
properties allegedly owned by the New Owners of the TML Garments ,  Inc .   This fact of ownership was claimed by the New
Owners or petitioners herein in their Motion to Intervene before the trial
court .   Petitioners contend that they
were not the original parties impleaded as co – defendants in Civil Case No .  Q – 29325 ;  that they were not summoned to appear before
the court ;  that they did not
participate in any manner in the proceedings before the court and that the
decision of the court a quo did not include them as judgment
debtors who should pay the judgment debt ,  and therefore to compel them to pay the
obligation incurred by the former owner of TML Garments ,  Inc .  ,
 without due process of law will amount to a deprivation of their
property .   Well – settled is the rule
that a writ of execution can only be issued against one who is a party to the
action and not against one who ,  not
being a party in the case ,  has not yet
had his day in court .  “   ( New
Owners / Management of TML Garments ,  Inc .  vs .  Zaragoza ,  170 SCRA 563 .  )  {par}

 “ If the disputed property
did not belong to the judgment debtor in NLRC Case No .  7 – 2577 – 84 ,  it could not be validly levied upon by the
sheriff for the satisfaction of the judgment therein .  “   ( Peñalosa ,  et al .  vs .  Hon .  Villanueva ,  et al .  ,  177
SCRA 778 .  )  {par}

Consequently ,  the
Regional Trial Court of Manila had jurisdiction to stop by injunction the
National Labor Relations Commission ‘ s sheriff from proceeding with the
auction sale of the property claimed by the private respondent ,  to satisfy the claims of the labor union
against the Poly – Plastic Products .  {par}

WHEREFORE ,  the
petition is dismissed for lack of merit .  {par}

SO ORDERED .  {par}

Narvasa ,   ( Chairman )  ,  Cruz
,  Gancayco ,  and
Medialdea ,  JJ .  ,  concur .  {par}