Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

NATIONAL MINES & ALLIED WORKERS’ UNION V VERA (2) If the purpose of RESPONDENTS in filing civil case is to vindicate

n filing civil case is to vindicate their rights over


NOV 19 1984 | CUEVAS, J the properties levied on by the sheriffs, the third party claim that they filed is
sufficient for the purpose.
FACTS
UNION filed a ULP case against PH IRON MINES Civil Case was instituted pursuant to and by authority of Sec 17 Rule 39 Rules of Court
 LA: PH IRON MINES ordered to pay UNION P4M representing severance pay, (proceedings where property claimed by third persons) – third party claimant (IN CASE,
educational allowance, accrued vacation leave earned but not enjoyed due to the RESPONDENTS) may file a separate and independent civil action to establish
COMPANY’s workers and employees as provided in CBA, workmen’s ownership of the property levied upon by the sheriff
compensation awards not yet settled or liquidated, and unpaid wages and salaries  Writ of injunction which is issued to stop the auction sale of the property is not an
covered by Art 108 Labor Code and to pay the fees and costs interference with the writ of execution issued by another court because the writ of
execution was improperly implemented by the sheriff
UNION secured a writ of execution [RETURNED UNSATISFIED out of assets in RIZAL]  Under that writ, he could attach the property of the judgment debtor – he is not
 NLRC, at the instance of UNION, appointed Deputy Sheriffs STA. ANA and SY of authorized to levy upon the property of the third party claimant
the Office of the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal as special sheriffs to enforce and IN CASE AT BAR, NLRC decision sought to be executed is against COMPANY, the
execute the decision upon real and personal properties of COMPANY in judgment debtor. But sheriffs levied upon the properties not of the COMPANY but on
Camarines, Norte RESPONDENTS, who were not parties in NLRC case
 Special Sheriffs levied on various properties enumerated in a List of Levied  RESPONDENTS have every right to file a separate action to vindicate their
Properties submitted by UNION and scheduled the sale thereof at a public auction property rights
 UNION’s reliance on the provision of Art 254 Labor Code which prohibits
It appears that prior to the rendition of the judgment, the properties levied and set to be injunctions or restraining orders in any case involving or growing out of a labor
auction had been purchased by RESPONDENTS (MANILA BANKING CORP and PH dispute NOT APPLICABLE
COMMERICAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK) in an auction sale conducted by Provincial o Civil case is one which neither involves nor grows out of a labor dispute. What
Sheriff of Camarines Norte, pursuant to a foreclosure proceedings duly instituted ‘involves’ no ‘grows out’ of a labor dispute is the NLRC case between UNION
over the properties [CERTIFICATE OF SALE evidencing the transaction was issued and COMPANY. RESPONDENTS are not parties to the case.
to RESPONDENTS] o Civil case does not put in issue either the fact or validity of the proceedings in
 Because of this foreclosure sale, UNION instituted before CFI a case for the the NLRC nor the decision rendered therein. It does not seek to enjoin the
purpose of annulling the foreclosure proceedings and subsequent auction of all the execution of the decision against properties of the COMPANY.
mortgaged properties of COMPANY [annulment suit still pending] o What is sought to be tried in civil case is whether NLRC’s decision and
writ of execution shall be permitted to be satisfied against properties of
On account of the projected auction sale, RESPONDENTS filed a complaint for RESPONDENTS, and not of COMPANY named in NLRC decision and writ
injunction with preliminary injunction against PETITIONERS (UNION and Special of execution [recourse is allowed under Sec 17 Rule 39 ROC]
Sheriffs) with CFI – alleged that the properties are covered by the mortgage contract
executed by COMPANY in favor of DBP – mortgage rights of DBP was assigned to Because a writ of execution was issued by NLRC does not authorize the sheriff
RESPONDENTS and since COMPANY failed to comply with conditions of the implementing the same to levy on anybody’s property. To deny the victim of the
mortgaged, it was foreclosed. wrongful levy, the recourse such as that availed of by the herein private
 On scheduled ate for the public auction sale, CFI issued TRO ordering respondents, under the pretext that no court of general jurisdiction can interfere
PETITIONERS to desist from further conducting the auction sale. with the writ of execution issued in a labor dispute, will be sanctioning a greater
 CFI: Issuance of writ of preliminary injunction DENIED; TRO lifted – third party evil than that sought to be avoided by the Labor Code provision in question.
claim already filed by RESPONDENTS with the Sheriff’s Office was sufficient to
protect their interest; MTD denied RULE: Power of a court to execute its judgment extends only over properties
unquestionably belonging to the judgment debtor.
ISSUE: WON CFI erred in taking cognizance of the civil case (of injunction)? NO
WHEREFORE, PETITION DISMISSED, TRO LIFTED AND DISSOLVED
UNION: CFI has no jurisdiction to entertain or take cognizance of civil case, except to
dismiss it because:
(1) Civil case seeks to enjoin the execution of a decision rendered in NLRC which
involves a labor dispute and therefore within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of
NLRC which could not be interfered with by civil court exercising general
jurisdiction [Art 254 Labor Code – injunction prohibited in any case involving or
growing out of labor dispute to be issued by any court or entity]