G.R. No. L-110687 December 15, 1993
ROLANDO G. OCAMPO, ALFREDO DEL PILAR, ROWENA C. ROBOSA, DAISY ADRIANO, LUISITO ARELLANO, TEODORO BANATICLA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. BARTOLOME CARALE, ETC., ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, members of the Allied Bank Employees Union, filed a petition for mandamus to compel public respondent Bartolome Carale, Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), to issue a writ of execution for their reinstatement as ordered in a Labor Arbiter’s decision. The labor case originated from private respondent Allied Banking Corporation’s charge that the Union staged an illegal strike in January and February 1985. The Union countered with allegations of unfair labor practices and illegal dismissal. Labor Arbiter Jose De Vera, in a decision dated September 4, 1992, declared the strikes illegal, resulting in the loss of employment status for union officers. However, he found the subsequent dismissal of 41 individual union members (the petitioners) illegal, ordering their reinstatement with backwages. On September 30, 1992, the Labor Arbiter issued a writ of execution for reinstatement. The bank appealed to the NLRC and filed a motion to quash the writ, which was denied. The bank then filed a “Petition for Injunction and Mandamus” with the NLRC (docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 00316-92) to restrain the implementation of the writ. After petitioners’ counsel sent letters to the NLRC Chairman requesting issuance of a writ of execution, which went unheeded, petitioners filed the instant petition with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether a writ of mandamus lies to compel the NLRC Chairman to issue a writ of execution for the reinstatement of the petitioners.

RULING

No. The petition for mandamus is dismissed. For a writ of mandamus to issue under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, the petitioner must have a clear legal right to the act demanded, and the respondent must have an imperative duty to perform that act. In this case, a writ of execution had already been issued by Labor Arbiter De Vera, and a motion to quash it had been denied. Therefore, the NLRC Chairman was no longer duty-bound to issue another similar writ. The appropriate remedy for the petitioners, to ensure implementation of the existing writ, was to move to cite the private respondent bank for contempt under Article 218(d) of the Labor Code, which empowers the NLRC to hold persons in contempt. Furthermore, the recourse to the Supreme Court was premature because a petition for injunction and mandamus filed by the respondent bank to restrain the implementation of the writ was still pending with, and yet to be acted upon by, the NLRC.