Lawyerly

GR No. 180699

2010-10-13

BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. LABOR ARBITER RODERICK JOSEPH CALANZA

NACHURA, J.

But as we clearly discussed in Bago v. National Labor Relations Commission,[26] while it is true that the reinstatement aspect of the LA decision is immediately executory, the reversal thereof by the NLRC becomes final and executory after ten (10) days from receipt thereof by the parties. That the CA may take cognizance of and resolve a petition for the nullification of the NLRC decision on jurisdictional and due process considerations does not affect the statutory finality of the NLRC decision. It then logically follows that, at the time of the application for the writ ¾ since the Court eventually sustained the NLRC and the CA decisions in G.R. No. 172812 ¾ no issue of payroll reinstatement may be considered at all after the reversal of the LA decision by the NLRC.

GR No. 179169

2010-03-03

LEONIS NAVIGATION CO. v. CATALINO U. VILLAMATER

NACHURA, J.

In the recent case Bago v. National Labor Relations Commission,[24] we had occasion to rule that although the CA may review the decisions or resolutions of the NLRC on jurisdictional and due process considerations, particularly when the decisions or resolutions have already been executed, this does not affect the statutory finality of the NLRC decisions or resolutions in view of Rule VIII, Section 6 of the 2002 New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, viz.: RULE VIII

GR No. 169095

2008-12-08

HEUNGHWA INDUSTRY CO. v. DJ BUILDERS CORPORATION

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

CIAC then issued an Order[12] dated November 27, 2000 ordering respondent to move for the dismissal of Civil Case No. 3421 pending before the RTC of Palawan and directing petitioner to file anew its answer.The said Order also denied respondent's motion to declare petitioner in default.

GR No. 169095

2008-12-08

HEUNGHWA INDUSTRY CO. v. DJ BUILDERS CORPORATION

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

On March 5, 2001, the CIAC denied petitioner's motion to dismiss on the ground that the November 27, 2000 Order had already been superseded by its Order of January 8, 2001.[16]

GR No. 169095

2008-12-08

HEUNGHWA INDUSTRY CO. v. DJ BUILDERS CORPORATION

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

April 6, 2001 - CIAC granted petitioner's motion and suspended the hearings dated April 10 and 17, 2001. May 16, 2001 - the RTC issued a Resolution[18] granting petitioner's Motion to Recall.[19]

GR No. 169095

2008-12-08

HEUNGHWA INDUSTRY CO. v. DJ BUILDERS CORPORATION

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

July 16, 2001- Respondent filed with the RTC a Motion to Dismiss[23] Civil Case No. 3421 praying for the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice to the filing of the proper complaint with the CIAC. On the same day, the RTC granted the motion without prejudice to petitioner's counterclaim.[24]

GR No. 169095

2008-12-08

HEUNGHWA INDUSTRY CO. v. DJ BUILDERS CORPORATION

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

August 15, 2001 - Petitioner filed a counter-manifestation[26] asserting that the RTC Order dated July 16, 2001 was not yet final. Petitioner reiterated the prayer to dismiss the case.

GR No. 169095

2008-12-08

HEUNGHWA INDUSTRY CO. v. DJ BUILDERS CORPORATION

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

February 7, 2002 - CIAC conducted a preliminary conference.[27] March 13, 2002 - the RTC issued a Resolution[28] declaring the July 16, 2001 Order which dismissed the case "without force and effect" and set the case for hearing on May 30, 2002.

GR No. 169095

2008-12-08

HEUNGHWA INDUSTRY CO. v. DJ BUILDERS CORPORATION

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

March 21, 2002 - Petitioner filed a Manifestation/Motion that the RTC had recalled the July 16, 2001 Order and had asserted jurisdiction over the entire case and praying for the dismissal of the pending case.[29]

GR No. 169095

2008-12-08

HEUNGHWA INDUSTRY CO. v. DJ BUILDERS CORPORATION

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

It is well to note that in its petition for certiorari[64] filed with the CA on April 9, 2002, petitioner prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the CIAC from hearing the case. On September 27, 2002, the CIAC promulgated its decision awarding Php31,119,465.81 to respondent. It is unfortunate for petitioner that the CA did not timely act on its petition. Records show that the temporary restraining order[65] was issued only on October 15, 2002 and a writ of preliminary injunction[66] was granted on December 11, 2002, long after the CIAC had concluded its proceedings. The only effect of the writ was to enjoin temporarily the enforcement of the award of the CIAC.

GR No. 169095

2008-12-08

HEUNGHWA INDUSTRY CO. v. DJ BUILDERS CORPORATION

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

It is well to note that in its petition for certiorari[64] filed with the CA on April 9, 2002, petitioner prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the CIAC from hearing the case. On September 27, 2002, the CIAC promulgated its decision awarding Php31,119,465.81 to respondent. It is unfortunate for petitioner that the CA did not timely act on its petition. Records show that the temporary restraining order[65] was issued only on October 15, 2002 and a writ of preliminary injunction[66] was granted on December 11, 2002, long after the CIAC had concluded its proceedings. The only effect of the writ was to enjoin temporarily the enforcement of the award of the CIAC.

	GR No. 180699 2010-10-13	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. LABOR ARBITER RODERICK JOSEPH CALANZA NACHURA, J.
But as we clearly discussed in Bago v. National Labor Relations Commission,[26] while it is true that the reinstatement aspect of the LA decision is immediately executory, the reversal thereof by the NLRC becomes final and executory after ten (10) days from receipt thereof by the parties. That the CA may take cognizance of and resolve a petition for the nullification of the NLRC decision on jurisdictional and due process considerations does not affect the statutory finality of the NLRC decision. It then logically follows that, at the time of the application for the writ ¾ since the Court eventually sustained the NLRC and the CA decisions in G.R. No. 172812 ¾ no issue of payroll reinstatement may be considered at all after the reversal of the LA decision by the NLRC.
	GR No. 179169 2010-03-03	LEONIS NAVIGATION CO. v. CATALINO U. VILLAMATER NACHURA, J.
In the recent case Bago v. National Labor Relations Commission,[24] we had occasion to rule that although the CA may review the decisions or resolutions of the NLRC on jurisdictional and due process considerations, particularly when the decisions or resolutions have already been executed, this does not affect the statutory finality of the NLRC decisions or resolutions in view of Rule VIII, Section 6 of the 2002 New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, viz.: RULE VIII
	GR No. 169095 2008-12-08	HEUNGHWA INDUSTRY CO. v. DJ BUILDERS CORPORATION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
CIAC then issued an Order[12] dated November 27, 2000 ordering respondent to move for the dismissal of Civil Case No. 3421 pending before the RTC of Palawan and directing petitioner to file anew its answer.The said Order also denied respondent's motion to declare petitioner in default.
	GR No. 169095 2008-12-08	HEUNGHWA INDUSTRY CO. v. DJ BUILDERS CORPORATION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
On March 5, 2001, the CIAC denied petitioner's motion to dismiss on the ground that the November 27, 2000 Order had already been superseded by its Order of January 8, 2001.[16]
	GR No. 169095 2008-12-08	HEUNGHWA INDUSTRY CO. v. DJ BUILDERS CORPORATION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
April 6, 2001 - CIAC granted petitioner's motion and suspended the hearings dated April 10 and 17, 2001. May 16, 2001 - the RTC issued a Resolution[18] granting petitioner's Motion to Recall.[19]
	GR No. 169095 2008-12-08	HEUNGHWA INDUSTRY CO. v. DJ BUILDERS CORPORATION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
July 16, 2001- Respondent filed with the RTC a Motion to Dismiss[23] Civil Case No. 3421 praying for the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice to the filing of the proper complaint with the CIAC. On the same day, the RTC granted the motion without prejudice to petitioner's counterclaim.[24]
	GR No. 169095 2008-12-08	HEUNGHWA INDUSTRY CO. v. DJ BUILDERS CORPORATION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
August 15, 2001 - Petitioner filed a counter-manifestation[26] asserting that the RTC Order dated July 16, 2001 was not yet final. Petitioner reiterated the prayer to dismiss the case.
	GR No. 169095 2008-12-08	HEUNGHWA INDUSTRY CO. v. DJ BUILDERS CORPORATION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
February 7, 2002 - CIAC conducted a preliminary conference.[27] March 13, 2002 - the RTC issued a Resolution[28] declaring the July 16, 2001 Order which dismissed the case "without force and effect" and set the case for hearing on May 30, 2002.
	GR No. 169095 2008-12-08	HEUNGHWA INDUSTRY CO. v. DJ BUILDERS CORPORATION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
March 21, 2002 - Petitioner filed a Manifestation/Motion that the RTC had recalled the July 16, 2001 Order and had asserted jurisdiction over the entire case and praying for the dismissal of the pending case.[29]
	GR No. 169095 2008-12-08	HEUNGHWA INDUSTRY CO. v. DJ BUILDERS CORPORATION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It is well to note that in its petition for certiorari[64] filed with the CA on April 9, 2002, petitioner prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the CIAC from hearing the case. On September 27, 2002, the CIAC promulgated its decision awarding Php31,119,465.81 to respondent. It is unfortunate for petitioner that the CA did not timely act on its petition. Records show that the temporary restraining order[65] was issued only on October 15, 2002 and a writ of preliminary injunction[66] was granted on December 11, 2002, long after the CIAC had concluded its proceedings. The only effect of the writ was to enjoin temporarily the enforcement of the award of the CIAC.
	GR No. 169095 2008-12-08	HEUNGHWA INDUSTRY CO. v. DJ BUILDERS CORPORATION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It is well to note that in its petition for certiorari[64] filed with the CA on April 9, 2002, petitioner prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the CIAC from hearing the case. On September 27, 2002, the CIAC promulgated its decision awarding Php31,119,465.81 to respondent. It is unfortunate for petitioner that the CA did not timely act on its petition. Records show that the temporary restraining order[65] was issued only on October 15, 2002 and a writ of preliminary injunction[66] was granted on December 11, 2002, long after the CIAC had concluded its proceedings. The only effect of the writ was to enjoin temporarily the enforcement of the award of the CIAC.

ARLYN D. BAGO v. NLRC