National Mines and Allied Workers Union v Vera

NATIONAL MINES & ALLIED WORKERS’ UNION V VERA NOV 19 1984 | CUEVAS, J FACTS UNION filed a ULP case against PH IRON MINES LA: LA: PH IRON MINES ordered to pay UNION P4M representing severance pay, educational allowance, allowance, accrued vacation leave earned but not enjoyed due to the COMPANY’s workers and employees as provided in CBA, workmen’s compensation awards not yet settled or liquidated, and unpaid wages and salaries covered by Art 108 Labor Code and to pay the fees and costs 

UNION secured UNION secured a writ of execution [RETURNED [RETURNED UNSATISFIED out UNSATISFIED  out of assets in RIZAL] NLRC, NLRC, at the instance of UNION, appointed Deputy Sheriffs STA. STA. ANA and SY of the Office of the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal as special sheriffs to enforce and execute the decision upon real and personal properties of COMPANY in Camarines, Norte Special Sheriffs Sheriffs levied on various properties enumerated enumerated in a List of Levied Properties submitted by UNION and scheduled the sale thereof at a public auction 



(2) If the purpose of RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS in filing civil civil case is to vindicate their rights over the properties levied on by the sheriffs, the third party claim that they filed is sufficient for the purpose. Civil Case was instituted pursuant to and by authority of Sec 17 Rule 39 Rules of Court (proceedings where property claimed by third persons) – persons) – third  third party claimant (IN CASE, RESPONDENTS) may file a separate and independent civil action to establish ownership of the property levied upon by the sheriff Writ of injunction injunction which which is issued to stop the auction auction sale of the property 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 that writ, he could could attach the property property of the judgment judgment debtor – debtor – he  he is not authorized to levy upon the property of the third party claimant IN CASE AT BAR, BAR, NLRC decision sought to be executed is against COMPANY, the  judgment debtor. But sheriffs levied upon the properties not of the COMPANY but on RESPONDENTS, who were not parties in NLRC case RESPONDENTS have every right to file a separate action to vindicate their property rights UNION’s reliance on the provision of Art 254 Labor Code which prohibits injunctions or restraining orders in any case involving or growing out of a labor dispute NOT APPLICABLE Civil case is one which which neither involves nor nor grows out of a labor labor dispute. What o ‘involves’ no ‘grows out’ of a labor dispute is the NLRC case between UNION and COMPANY. RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS are not parties to the case. Civil case case does not put in issue either the fact or validity validity of the proceedings proceedings in o the NLRC nor the decision rendered therein. It does not seek to enjoin the execution of the decision against properties of the COMPANY. COMPANY. What is sought to be tried in civil case is whether whether NLRC’s decision and o writ of execution shall be permitted to be satisfied against properties of RESPONDENTS, RESPONDENTS , and not of COMPANY named in NLRC decision and writ of execution [recourse is allowed under Sec 17 Rule 39 ROC] 







It appears that prior to the rendition of the judgment, the properties levied and set to be auction had been purchased by RESPONDENTS (MANILA BANKING CORP and PH COMMERICAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK) in an auction sale conducted by Provincial Sheriff of Camarines Norte, pursuant to a foreclosure proceedings duly instituted over the properties [CERTIFICATE properties [CERTIFICATE OF SALE evidencing the transaction was issued to RESPONDENTS] Because of of this foreclosure foreclosure sale, UNION UNION instituted instituted before CFI a case for the purpose of annulling the foreclosure proceedings and subsequent auction of all the mortgaged properties of COMPANY [annulment [annulment suit still pending] pending] 

On account of the projected auction sale, RESPONDENTS filed a complaint for injunction with preliminary injunction  injunction  against PETITIONERS (UNION and Special Sheriffs) with CFI – CFI  – alleged  alleged that the properties are covered by the mortgage contract executed by COMPANY in favor of DBP  – mortgage  – mortgage rights of DBP was assigned to RESPONDENTS and since COMPANY failed to comply with conditions of the mortgaged, it was foreclosed. On scheduled scheduled ate for the public public auction auction sale, CFI  CFI  issued TRO ordering PETITIONERS PETITIONERS to desist from further conducting the auction sale. CFI: CFI: Issuance of writ of preliminary injunction DENIED; TRO lifted  –   –  third party claim already filed by RESPONDENTS with the Sheriff’s Office was sufficient to protect their interest; MTD denied 



Because a writ of execution was issued by NLRC does not authorize the sheriff implementing the same to levy on anybody’s property. To deny the victim of the wrongful levy, the recourse such as that availed of by the herein private respondents, under the pretext that no court of general jurisdiction can interfere with the writ of execution issued in a labor dispute, will be sanctioning a greater evil than that sought to be avoided by the Labor Code provision in question. RULE: RULE: Power of a court to execute its judgment extends only over properties unquestionably belonging belonging to the judgment debtor.

ISSUE: ISSUE: WON CFI erred in taking cognizance of the civil case (of injunction)? NO WHEREFORE, PETITION WHEREFORE,  PETITION DISMISSED, TRO LIFTED AND DISSOLVED UNION: 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 [Art 254 Labor Code  – injunction  – injunction prohibited in any case involving or growing out of labor dispute to be issued by any court or entity]