ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

Like

chanrobles.com

Tweet
Search

Tweet

Gmail
COMPOSE

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1975 > March 1975 Decisions > G.R. No. L-40136 March 25,
1975 - COSMOS FOUNDRY SHOP WORKERS UNION, ET AL. v. LO BU, ET AL.:

Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-40136. March 25, 1975.]
COSMOS FOUNDRY SHOP WORKERS UNION and FILEMON G. ALVAREZ, Petitioners, v. LO BU
and COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.
Filemon G. Alvarez, for Petitioners.
Yolando F. Busmente for respondent Lo Bu.
SYNOPSIS
To enforce its judgment in favor of petitioner labor union, the Court of Industrial Relations issued an
alias writ of execution against the properties of the New Century Foundry Shop, which the court found to
have been fictitiously sold to respondent Lo Bu. When the sheriff levied on said properties, Lo Bu filed
urgent motions to recall the writ, asserting lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations. The
motions were denied. Lo Bu appealed by certiorari, but the Supreme Court denied the same. Meanwhile,
Lo Bu filed a replevin suit covering the same properties. Upon receipt of the order from the Supreme
Court denying certiorari, petitioner labor union moved to dismiss alleging lack of cause of action, Lo Bu
being a fictitious buyer as found by the Courts of Industrial Relations and affirmed by the Supreme
Court. The lower court dismissed the complaint. When Lo Bu appealed the dismissal to the Court of
Appeals, petitioner filed the instant petition.

DebtKollect Company, Inc.

The Supreme Court held that the finality of the writ of execution became definitely settled when the
Supreme Court denied Lo Bus petition for certiorari questioning the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial
Relations. The decision denying certiorari is the law of the case which is not the subject to review or
reversal in any court. The Court of Appeals was restrained from taking any further action on Lo Bus
appeal.
Petition granted.
SYLLABUS
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; SOCIAL JUSTICE AND PROTECTION TO LABOR; LABOR UNION CAN AVAIL OF
CERTIORARI TO PREVENT DELAY IN SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT IN ITS FAVOR. As a general rule,
certiorari is not available where there exists a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
But where the prevailing party is a labor union in a labor dispute which unfortunately had dragged on for
thirteen years, and all its efforts to obtain what was due it was rendered illusory through the
machinations of the employer now deceased and a third person, a halt should be called to the schemes
to defeat labors just claim.

ChanRobles Intellectual Property

Division

2. JUDGMENTS; LAW OF THE CASE; PRINCIPLE OF LAW OF THE CASE PREVENTS COURT OF APPEALS
FROM TAKING ACTION ON INSTANT APPEAL. The Court of Appeals should be restrained from taking
any further action in an appeal from a decision dismissing a replevin suit where the Supreme Court in a
previous case had denied plaintiffs petition for certiorari questioning the jurisdiction of the Court of
Industrial Relations which made a finding that the properties covered by the replevin suit had been
fictitiously sold to plaintiff to frustrate the execution of a judgment in an unfair labor practice
controversy. This is to accord deference to the fundamental principle of the law of the case. The

Supreme Court had declared that a decision that has become the law of the case "is not subject to
review or reversal in any court."
cralaw virtua1aw library

3. LEGAL ETHICS; LAWYERS SHOULD NOT DISREGARD THE TRUTH IN DEFENDING THEIR CLIENTS
CAUSE. A lawyer is expected to defend his clients cause with zeal, but not at the disregard of truth
and in defiance of the clear purpose of labor statutes. He ought to remember that his obligation as an
officer of the court, no less than the dignity of the profession, requires that he should not act like an
errand-boy at the beck and call of his client, ready and eager to do his every bidding. If he fails to keep
that admonition in mind, then he puts into serious question his good standing in the bar.
BARREDO, J., concurring:

chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. COURT OF APPEALS; COURT OF APPEALS MAY BE ENJOINED FROM ACTING ON APPEALED CASE IF
LAW AND JUSTICE SO DEMAND. Ordinarily, an appeal cannot be stopped by prohibition. However,
where it is obvious that to allow the Court of Appeals to entertain an appeal would be sanctioning the
apparently endless ingenious schemes, if judicial, of appellant to further delay the execution of the
judgment which had become final and executory for almost two years after a protracted litigation that
spanned thirteen years, law and justice demand that appellees should not be further denied the fruit of
their legal efforts to secure redress.
2. ID.; JURISDICTION; NO APPELLATE JURISDICTION OVER CASE DECIDED ON PURELY LEGAL
GROUNDS. A trial courts order of dismissal based on the legal ground of res adjudicata should be
appealed directly to the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals to which the order has been appealed
would have no alternative but to certify the appeal to the Supreme Court. For want of appellate
jurisdiction, such appeal in the Court of Appeals may be considered non-existing and that court should
be enjoined from taking further action thereon.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; SUPREME COURT MAY DECIDE THE CASE AS IF PROPER APPEAL HAS BEEN MADE.
Where in a petition for certiorari impugning an appeal filed in the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court
finds that it has appellate jurisdiction since the case was decided by the trial court on purely legal
grounds, the Supreme Court can decide the case as if it had been duly appealed to it without the need
of any further proceeding. In the interest of a faster, more effective and less technically cumbersome
administration of justice, the Court should put an end to the controversy between the parties.
4. RES ADJUDICATA; RULING ON JURISDICTION HAS THE EFFECT OF RES ADJUDICATA. As far as
parties in the case at bar are concerned, the ruling of the Supreme Court sustaining the jurisdiction of
the Court of Industrial Relations to pass on the questions of the alleged fictitiousness of the sale of the
properties to respondent Lo Bu is the law of the case. Even a ruling on jurisdiction has the effect of res
adjudicata. Much less then could any other court disregard it. And inasmuch as the trial court simply
adhered to this view, its order dismissing the replevin case filed by Lo Bu can hardly be assailed as
erroneous.
DECISION
FERNANDO, J.:

March-1975 Jurisprudence
A.M. No. P-225 March 3, 1975 - JUAN L. NASSR, JR.,
ET AL. v. ARTHUR MOLTIO
G.R. Nos. L-37201-02 March 3, 1975 - CLEMENTE
MAGTOTO v. MIGUEL M. MANGUERA
G.R. No. L-25748 March 10, 1975 - CONSOLIDATED
TERMINALS, INC. v. ARTEX DEVELOPMENT CO., INC.
G.R. No. L-33720-21 March 10, 1975 - PHILIPPINE
BRITISH CO., INC., ET AL. v. WALFRIDO DE LOS
ANGELES
G.R. No. L-39669 March 10, 1975 - INTERNATIONAL
HOTEL CORPORATION, ET AL. v. ELIAS B. ASUNCION,
ET AL.
G.R. No. L-40044 March 10, 1975 - PABLO RAMOS
CAEG v. VICENTE ABAD SANTOS
G.R. No. L-28248 March 12, 1975 - LEONORA PERIDO,
ET AL. v. MARIA PERIDO, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-35783 March 12, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. SALIK MAGONAWAL, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-38427 March 12, 1975 - CENTRAL BANK OF
THE PHILIPPINES v. JESUS P. MORFE
G.R. No. L-23842 March 13, 1975 - ALEJANDRO A.
LICHAUCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-38626 March 14, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. STEPHEN DOUGLAS STRONG
G.R. Nos. L-26888-89 March 17, 1975 - MILAGROS M.
VDA. DE GARCIA, ET AL. v. AUDITOR GENERAL
G.R. No. L-27263 March 17, 1975 - AURELIO DE LOS
REYES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R.

No.

L-28453

March

21,

1975

EUSEBIO

The jurisdiction of respondent Court of Appeals is assailed in this certiorari and prohibition proceeding. It
is taken to task for entertaining an appeal from the Court of First Instance on a replevin suit which was
correctly dismissed as it had all the earmarks of a subterfuge that was resorted to for the purpose of
frustrating the execution of a judgment in an unfair labor practice controversy, one moreover already
passed upon and sustained by this Court. Petitioner Cosmos Foundry Shop Workers Union is the
prevailing party in that labor dispute which unfortunately had dragged on since 1961, all its efforts to
obtain what was due it being rendered illusory through the machinations of a certain Ong Ting, now
deceased, and the private respondent Lo Bu. The lack of competence of respondent Court of Appeals to
proceed further is thus rather obvious. It is about time that there be an effective vindication of the
rights of petitioner labor union, so long set at naught and disregarded, by the employment of
techniques, which certainly deserve no encouragement, much less approval. There was a grave infirmity
then in the Court of Appeals having dismissed the appeal, reinstating it in its resolution of December 19,
1974. Certiorari and prohibition lie.
The facts show that on January 16, 1973, petitioner Cosmos Foundry Shop Workers Union was able to
obtain from the Court of Industrial Relations the third alias writ of execution for the satisfaction and
enforcement of the judgment in its favor. 1 Thereafter, Deputy Sheriff Mario Abiog of Manila, who was
especially deputized to serve the writ, did so on January 17 and 18, 1973 levying on the personal
properties of the Cosmos Foundry Shop or the New Century Foundry Shop for the purpose of conducting
the public auction sale. 2 It was then that respondent Lo Bu filed an urgent motion to recall writ of
execution, asserting lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations, a point stressed in another
motion dated February 2, 1973, on the further ground that petitioner Cosmos Foundry Shop Workers
Union failed to put up an indemnity bond. The Court of Industrial Relations in its order dated February
23, 1973 denied his motions. So likewise was the motion for reconsideration, as shown in its order dated
March 23, 1973. Private respondent appealed by certiorari such order to this Court. It was docketed as
G. R. No. L-36636. 3 This Court, in its resolution dated July 17, 1973, denied the petition for certiorari of
private Respondent. 4 In the meanwhile, there was a replevin suit by private respondent in the Court of
First Instance of Manila covering the same properties. Upon receipt of the order from this Court denying
certiorari, petitioner labor union filed a second motion to dismiss the complaint. It was therein alleged
that private respondent has no cause of action, he being a fictitious buyer based on the findings of the
Court of Industrial Relations in its order dated June 22, 1970 and affirmed by the Supreme Court in its
resolution dated July 17, 1973. The lower court dismissed the complaint. 5 That is the decision elevated
to the Court of Appeals, and it is precisely because of its obvious character as a further delaying tactic
that this petition is filed.
Petitioner labor union has made out a case for certiorari and prohibition.
1. The order of the Court of Industrial Relations in the unfair labor practice case dated June 27, 1970 6
for the satisfaction and enforcement of which the third alias writ of execution was issued in favor of
petitioner labor union starts with the following: "This concerns complainants motion for the issuance of
an alias writ of execution, dated March 12, 1970, allowing the Sheriff to serve the Writ and returnable
within 60 days and the said writ should be directed to Cosmos Foundry Shop or New Foundry Shop
which is the firm name use(d) by the respondent in lieu of the Cosmos Foundry Shop . . . The original
writ of execution had been returned wholly unsatisfied as respondents had no visible properties found in
their names, and the foundry shop where Mrs. Ong Ting and her family reside at Maisan, Valenzuela,
Bulacan, is the New Century Foundry Shop (return of the Deputy Provincial Sheriff of Bulacan, dated
March 11, 1970). Consequently, in its Order of March 19, 1970, the Court directed the examination of
Mrs. Ong Ting and the Cosmos Foundry Shop concerning the latters and Ong Tings property and
income. Extensive hearings were conducted." 7

TORIBIO, ET AL. v. GREGORlO D. MONTEJO

G.R. No. L-30447 March 21, 1975 - ERNESTO S. MATA
v. LOURDES P. SAN DIEGO
G.R. No. L-38280 March 21, 1975 - ST. PETER
MEMORIAL PARK, INC. v. JOSE C. CAMPOS, JR., ET AL.
G.R. No. L-39655 March 21, 1975 - ARROW
TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION v. BOARD OF
TRANSPORTATION, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-40018 March 21, 1975 - NORTHERN
MOTORS, INC. v. JORGE R. COQUIA
G.R. No. L-40060 March 21, 1975 - EMETERIO DUQUE
v. CAPTAIN VINARAO
A.C. No. 1054 March 25, 1975 - JUAN AZOR v.
EUSTAQUIO BELTRAN
G.R. No. L-25069 March 25, 1975 - JOSE G. SAMALA
v. SAULOG TRANSIT, INC., ET AL.
G.R. No. L-25142 March 25, 1975 - PHILIPPINE
RABBIT BUS LINES, INC., ET AL. v. PHIL-AMERICAN
FORWARDERS, INC., ET AL.
G.R. No. L-27382 March 25, 1975 - ASSOCIATED
LABOR UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS,
ET AL.
G.R. No. L-33344 March 25, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. AGRIPINO BUNSOL, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-35113 March 25, 1975
CUARESMA v. MARCELO DAQUIS, ET AL.

EUGENIO

G.R. No. L-38206 March 25, 1975 - PABLO NONAN, ET

AL. v. ANDRES B. PLAN, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-38453-54 March 25, 1975 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. PEDRO C. NAVARRO
G.R. No. L-38502 March 25, 1975 - PIO B. FERANDOS
v. JUAN Y. REYES, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-38510 March 25, 1975 - SPS. DOLORES
MEDINA AND MOISES BERNAL v. NELLY L. ROMERO
VALDELLON
G.R. No. L-38974 March 25, 1975 - OMICO MINING
AND INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, ET AL. v. AMADOR T.
VALLEJOS
G.R. No. L-39146 March 25, 1975 - TRINIDAD DE
LEON VDA. DE ROXAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-40136 March 25, 1975 - COSMOS
FOUNDRY SHOP WORKERS UNION, ET AL. v. LO BU, ET
AL.
G.R. No. L-40247 March 25, 1975 - AMERICAN
INSURANCE COMPANY v. UNITED STATES LINES
COMPANY, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-25849 March
LAPERAL v. PACIFICO CRUZ

26,

1975

ROBERTO

Then comes this relevant portion: "From the evidence and the records, the Court finds that after the
Cosmos Foundry Shop was burned, Ong Ting established the New Century Foundry Shop. He and his
family resided in the premises of the shop at 118 Maisan Road, Valenzuela, Bulacan. After his proposal
to settle the present case for P5,000.00 in September 1968, for P25,000.00 in October 1968, and for
P40,000.00 on December 22, 1968, were successively rejected by complainants counsel, Ong Ting,
after hinting of taking measures to avoid liability, soon executed a deed of absolute sale on December
31, 1968, selling all his business, including equipment, machineries, improvements, materials, supplies
and rights, in the New Century Foundry Shop, to his compadre Lo Bu, for P20,000.00, which he
acknowledged so fully paid . . . The deed does not bear the conformity of Mrs. Ong Ting On January 7,
1969, when Lo Bu applied for the original registration of the firm name, he gave his name as the
manager and the capital of the business as P30,000.00 . . . Notwithstanding such sale to Lo Bu, Ong
Ting filed a verified urgent motion to reopen the case on January 25, 1969, and a verified motion for
reconsideration of the Decision on May 12, 1969. In the latter motion, it was alleged that as a result of
the fire, Ong Ting lost everything; we cannot squeeze blood out of nothing . . . This allegation was
made despite the recent alleged sale to Lo Bu, from which he realized P20,000 00." 8 The absence of
good faith on the part of respondent Lo Bu as the alleged vendee was made clear thus: "There was no
actual turn over of the business to Lo Bu, the alleged manager in absentia. At the time Ong Ting died,
he was still residing in the premises of the shop . . . b. His family continued to reside therein without
paying any rental to Lo Bu. His young 19-year-old son Delfin Ong became in-charge of the shop and the
workers. His daughter Gloria Ong became the cashier. Mrs. Ong Ting became the manager and she
supervised the work. . . . The alleged sale was no doubt intended to circumvent any judgment this Court
might render unfavorable to respondents. It is clearly fictitious. And such a declaration by this Court is
well within its jurisdiction because what is being sought is the enforcement or implementation of its
order. Having acquired jurisdiction, the Court may employ means to carry it into effect (Sec. 6, Rule
135, Rules of Court." 9
That was why in the dispositive portion of the aforesaid order, an alias writ of execution was issued
against the properties held in the name of the New Century Foundry Shop at 118 Maisan Road,
Valenzuela, Bulacan for the satisfaction of the judgment in this unfair labor practice proceeding. As
noted, there was a replevin suit by the same vendee in bad faith, Lo Bu, which was dismissed by the
Court of First Instance of Manila precisely because in the meanwhile the finality of the writ of execution
became definitely settled when this Court issued its resolution of July 17, 1973. 10 It denied the petition
for certiorari filed by the private respondent, Lo Bu, for the purpose of annulling the third writ of
execution issued in accordance with the dispositive portion of the order of the Court of June 22, 1970.
2. To all intents and purposes then, that is the law of the case. What is worse, private respondent Lo Bu
certainly cannot plead ignorance, as he himself was the petitioner in the certiorari proceeding before this
Court. He failed, and it was not surprising, for on the facts as found, he was a principal in the nefarious
scheme to frustrate the award in favor of petitioner labor union. There was thus a ruling as to the bad
faith that characterized his pretension of being the alleged vendee. In Cruz v. Philippine Association of
Free Labor Unions 11 it was shown that to avoid the legal consequences of an unfair labor practice,
there was a fictitious sale resorted to, as in this case. Under the circumstances, the bad faith being
evident, the ostensible vendee was precluded from taking advantage of the situation. So it must be
here. Moreover, that is merely, as stated earlier, to accord deference to the fundamental principle of the
law of the case, his petition for certiorari having been dismissed by this Court. There is this excerpt from
the recent decision of Mangayao v. De Guzman: 12 "The latest case in point as of the time the order
complained of was issued is Kabigting v. Acting Director of Prisons, a 1962 decision. As emphasized by
the ponente, the then Justice, now Chief Justice, Makalintal: It need not be stated that the Supreme
Court, being the court of last resort, is the final arbiter of all legal questions properly brought before it
and that its decision in any given case constitutes the law of that particular case. Once its judgment
becomes final it is binding on all inferior courts, and hence beyond their power and authority to alter or
modify. If petitioner had any ground to believe that the decision of this Court in Special Proceeding No.
12276 should further be reviewed his remedy was to ask for a reconsideration thereof. In fact he did file
two motions for that purpose, both of which were denied. A new petition before an inferior court on the
same grounds was unjustified. As much, indeed, was clearly indicated by this Court in its resolution of
April 3, 1959, hereinabove reproduced in its entirety. The import of the resolution is too plain to be
misunderstood. So it has been from 1919, when in Compagnie Franco-Indochinoise v. DeutscheAustralische Dampschiffs Gesellschaft, this Court, through Justice Street, categorically declared that a
decision that has become the law of the case is not subject to review or reversal in any court. What is
more, in 1967, there is a reaffirmation of the doctrine by this Tribunal in People v. Olarte, where it was
stressed by Justice J.B.L. Reyes that a ruling constituting the law of the case, even if erroneous, . . .
may no longer be disturbed or modified since it has become final . . . Then, in Sanchez v. Court of
Industrial Relations, promulgated in 1969, there is the pronouncement that the law of the case does not
apply solely to what is embodied in [this Courts] decision but likewise to its implementation carried out
in fealty to what has been . . . decreed." 13
3. Private respondent, in his special and affirmative defenses, alleged that petitioners have a plain and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law being the appellees in the pending case in the Court of
Appeals sought to be dismissed in this suit for certiorari. As a general rule, such a plea could be looked
upon with sympathy. That is the ordinary course of judicial procedure. There would be no basis for
legitimate grievance on the part of petitioners. It is not so however in this case. The sad plight of
petitioner labor union had been previously noted. It is about time that a halt be called to the schemes
utilized by respondent Lo Bu in his far-from-commendable efforts to defeat labors just claim. It would
be repugnant to the principle of social justice 14 and the mandate of protection to labor 15 if there be
further delay in the satisfaction of a judgment that ought to have been enforced years ago.
4. One last point. It was set forth in the Petition 16 that respondent Lo Bu filed an urgent motion with
the Court of Industrial Relations to recall the writ of execution alleging as one of his grounds lack of
jurisdiction to pass upon the validity of the sale of the New Century Foundry Shop, followed by another
motion praying for the return of the levied properties this time asserting that petitioner labor union
failed to put up an indemnity bond and then a third, this time to allow the sheriff to keep the levied
properties at his factory, all of which were denied by the Court en banc in its order of March 23, 1973,
assailed in the certiorari proceeding, dismissed by this Court for lack of merit. 17 Counsel Yolando F.
Busmente in his Answer to this petition, filed on February 20, 1975, had the temerity to deny such
allegations. He simply ignored the fact that as counsel for respondent Lo Bu, petitioner in L-36636, he
did specifically maintain: "On January 26, 1973, in order to vindicate his rights over the levied
properties, in an expeditious or less expensive manner, herein appellant voluntarily submitted himself,
as a forced intervenor, to the jurisdiction of respondent CIR, by filing an urgent Motion to Recall Writ of
Execution, precisely questioning the jurisdiction of said Court to pass upon the validity and legality of
the sale of the New Century Foundry Shop to him, without the latter being made a party to the case, as
well as the jurisdiction of said Court to enforce the Decision rendered against the respondents in Case
No. 3021-ULP, by means of an alias writ of execution against his properties found at the New Century
Foundry Shop; . . .; Petitioner appellants urgent motion aforesaid was set for hearing on February 5,
1973, and inasmuch as the auction sale of his properties was set for January 31, 1973, the CIR issued
an order on January 30, 1973, one day before the schedule sale, ordering the Sheriff of Manila not to
proceed with the auction sale; . . .; On February 3, 1973, herein petitioner-appellant [Lo Bu] filed
another urgent motion dated February 2, 1973, praying for the return of his properties on the ground
that the judgment creditor (respondent-appellee) failed to put up an indemnity bond, pursuant to the
provision of Section 17, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court; . . . On February 10, 1973, respondent-appellee

Cosmos Foundry Workers Union interposed its opposition to herein petitioner-appellants urgent motions
dated January 26, 1973 and February 2, 1973, . . .; On February 27, 1973, herein petitioner-appellant
received an order from respondent CIR, dated February 25, 1973, denying his urgent motions and
ordering the Sheriff of Manila to proceed with the auction sale of his properties in accordance with law;
. . .." 18 Such conduct on the part of counsel is far from commendable. He could, of course, be casuistic
and take refuge in the fact that the paragraph of the petition, which he denied, was, in addition to being
rather poorly and awkwardly worded, also prolix, with unnecessary matter being included therein
without due regard to logic or coherence or even rules of grammar. He could add that his denial was to
be correlated with his special defenses, where he concentrated on points not previously admitted. That
is the most that can be said of his performance, and it is not enough. For even if such be the case,
Attorney Busmente had not exculpated himself. He was of course expected to defend his clients cause
with zeal, but not at the disregard of the truth and in defiance of the clear purpose of labor statutes. He
ought to remember that his obligation as an officer of the court, no less than the dignity of the
profession, requires that he should not act like an errand-boy at the beck and call of his client, ready
and eager to do his every bidding. If he fails to keep that admonition in mind, then he puts into serious
question his good standing in the bar.

www.bizmates.ph

WHEREFORE, the writ of certiorari is granted and the order of December 19, 1974 of respondent Court
of Appeals reinstating the appeal is nullified and set aside. The writ of prohibition is likewise granted,
respondent Court of Appeals being perpetually restrained from taking any further action on such appeal,
except that of dismissing it. Triple costs.
Makalintal, C.J., Antonio and Fernandez, JJ., concur.
Aquino, J., is on sick leave.
Separate Opinions
BARREDO, J., concurring:

chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I concur in the judgment enjoining the Court of Appeals from entertaining the appeal of private
respondent in CA-G.R. No. 56485-R entitled Lo Bu, etc. v. Cosmos Foundry Shop Workers Union & F.
Alvarez.
After petitioners had secured a judgment in the Court of Industrial Relations against Cosmos Foundry
Shop and by virtue thereof obtained a writ of execution against said Shop and the Sheriff had levied on
properties found therein, herein private respondent appeared and asserting his rights over the levied
properties by virtue of a sale made to him by the Shop, impugned the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court
to carry out the purported execution. The Industrial Court sustained its authority and on certiorari to the
Supreme Court by respondent the petition was dismissed (G. R. No. L-36636). In the meanwhile,
respondent sued for replevin of the same properties in the Court of First Instance of Manila, Case No.
89994. In its answer to the replevin action, petitioners invoked the resolution of this Court in G. R. No.
L-36636 and moved to dismiss the complaint, which motion was granted. When respondent appealed to
the Court of Appeals, petitioners filed the present petition for prohibition.
No doubt, as things stand now, the remedy pursued by petitioners is not the appropriate one. The
ground of dismissal upheld by the trial court was in essence res adjudicata. Ordinarily, against such
dismissal, the remedy is appeal and, of course, such an appeal cannot be stopped by prohibition. And if
only because the Court of Appeals has not been given any opportunity at all to pass on its own alleged
lack of jurisdiction, the present action would seem to be premature.
From another point of view, however, it is quite obvious that to allow the respondent Court of Appeals to
entertain respondents appeal would be sanctioning, as the main opinion finds, the apparently endless
ingenious schemes, if judicial, of respondent to further delay the execution of the subject judgment
which became final and executory almost two years ago after a protracted litigation that started way
back in 1961, since thirteen yesteryears from now. Law and justice demand that petitioners should not
be further denied the fruit of their legal efforts, to secure redress, particularly because in the order of
the Industrial Court denying respondents motion to recall the writ of execution against Cosmos Foundry
Shop, the court found said Shop and respondent to have indulged in a simulated transaction covering
the properties in question purposely to avoid satisfaction of the judgment in favor of petitioners.
To reiterate, the ground of dismissal of respondents replevin suit is a legal one, res adjudicata, termed
in the main opinion as "law of the case." Indeed, the Court of Industrial Relations had already found the
sale to respondent of the Cosmos Foundry Shop to be fraudulent, and that decision was sustained by
this Court. In that proceeding, even the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court was questioned. Thus, both
the merits of the respective claims of the parties as well as the validity of the action of the Industrial
Court is now beyond question. And that was the basis of petitioners motion to dismiss the replevin
action. Under these circumstances, any appeal from the order of dismissal should have come directly to
this Court, the issue passed upon by the trial court being purely legal, premised as it is on conclusions of
fact of the Court of Industrial Relations no longer assailable as a matter of law by Respondent.
In other words, the Court of Appeals would have no alternative anyway than to certify that appeal to Us,
and, accordingly, We can already decide the present action as if certification had in fact been made. The
pleadings and the issues before Us now could not be substantially different, if We took the roundabout
way of directing such certification to be made before We render Our decision. It is, but proper, therefore,
that in the interest of a faster, more effective and less technically cumbersome administration of justice,
We should here and now put an end to the controversy between the parties herein.
Contrary to the claim of respondent regarding the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court to pass on the
question of the alleged fictitiousness of the sale to respondent, there is at least the decision of this Court
in Kaisahan ng Mga Manggagawa sa La Campana v. De los Angeles, 36 SCRA 142, holding that the
power of control over the Sheriff in relation to the implementation of writ of execution issued by the
Industrial Court belongs to that court and not to any Court of First Instance. (at pp. 155-6.) But even
assuming there could be in truth some doubt on the matter, the fact is that issue was actually included
in the previous proceeding in that court sustained by this Court in G. R. No. L-36636. If that ruling is in
anyway erroneous, We cannot change it anymore. As far as the parties are concerned that is the law of
the case. Even a ruling on jurisdiction has the effect of res adjudicata. Much less then could any other
court disregard it. And inasmuch as the trial court simply adhered to this view, its order of dismissal can
hardly be assailed as erroneous.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is my considered view that for want of appellate jurisdiction, the
impugned appeal in the Court of Appeals may be considered as non-existing and that court should be
enjoined from taking any further action thereon, even as We decide the case now as if it had been duly
appealed to us without the need of any further proceeding, since, as already observed, the necessary
pleadings are in effect already before Us.
Endnotes:

1. Petition, par. 2.
2. Ibid, par. 3.
3. Ibid, par. 4.
4. Ibid, par. 7.
5. Ibid, par. 6.
6. Case No. 1321-ULP of the Court of Industrial Relations.
7. Order, Annex A to Petition, 1.
8. Ibid, 4.
9. Ibid, 5.
10. Lo Bu, doing business under the name and style of New Century Foundry Shop v.
Court of Industrial Relations, L-36636.
11. L-26519, October 29, 1971, 42 SCRA 68.
12. L-24787, February 22, 1974, 55 SCRA 540.
13. Ibid, 543-544. Kabigting is reported in 6 SCRA 281, Compagnie Franco-Indochinoise
in 39 Phil. 474, Clarte in 19 SCRA 494, and Sanchez in 27 SCRA 490.
14. It is worth noting that the social justice principle has been further vitalized in the
present Constitution. Thus, Article II, Section 6 provides: "The State shall promote social
justice to ensure the dignity, welfare, and security of all the people. Towards this end, the
State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, enjoyment, and disposition of private
property, and equitably diffuse property ownership and profits."
cralaw virtua1aw library

15. The mandate of protection to labor has been likewise made more definite as shown by
the language employed in Article II, Section 9: "The State shall afford protection to labor,
promote full employment and equality in employment, ensure equal work opportunities
regardless of sex, race, or creed, and regulate the relations between workers and
employers. The State shall assure the rights of workers to self-organization, collective
bargaining, security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work. The State may
provide for compulsory arbitration."
cralaw virtua1aw library

16. Petition, par. 4.

17. L-36636, Lo Bu v. Court of Industrial Relations. The resolution denying the petition for
lack of merit was issued on July 20, 1973.
18. Petition in L-36636, pars. 12-16.

Ads by Google
Ads by Google
Ads by Google

Law GR
GR V
Court Cases

GR V
GR Case
Court GR

GR Case
GR No
GR GR

GR No
GR L
Bid Tender

Back to Home | Back to Main

QUICK SEARCH

1901

1902

1903

1904

1905

1906

1907

1908

1909

1910

1911

1912

1913

1914

1915

1916

1917

1918

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

1957

1958

1959

1960

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Main Indices of the Library --->

Go!

Copyright 1998 - 20161998 - 2016 ChanRobles Publishing Company

| Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions

ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

| chanrobles.com

RED