G.R. No. 119116 September 3, 1998
CRISANTO DAYONOT, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, AUTOGRAPHICS INC., PAUL Y. RODRIGUEZ and EUGENE L. TOPACIO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Crisanto Dayonot filed an illegal dismissal case against his employers, private respondents Autographics Inc., Paul Y. Rodriguez, and Eugene L. Topacio. The Labor Arbiter decided in favor of Dayonot, a decision affirmed by the NLRC and the Supreme Court. After the decision became final and executory in 1991, writs of execution were issued. As they were not fully satisfied, a third alias writ was issued. Sheriff Leahmon Tolo levied a parcel of land in Cebu City and issued a notice of sheriff’s sale set for December 10, 1992. On that date, Sheriff Tolo issued a Certificate of Auction Sale, which he acknowledged before a Notary Public on March 18, 1993. Petitioner caused annotations on the respondents’ certificate of title. In March 1994, petitioner filed a Motion for issuance of a Certificate of Definite Deed of Sale, contending the redemption period had lapsed. Private respondents filed an Omnibus Motion to cancel the annotations and declare the judgment satisfied, alleging Sheriff Tolo was no longer a sheriff as early as January 1992, rendering his subsequent acts void. The Labor Arbiter denied the omnibus motion and ordered the issuance of the Certificate of Sale to petitioner. The NLRC set aside the Labor Arbiter’s order and annulled the Certificate of Sale, finding Sheriff Tolo was already dismissed at the time of the auction sale and issuance/notarization of the certificate. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC.

ISSUE

Whether the Certificate of Auction Sale issued by Sheriff Leahmon Tolo is valid and effective, considering the allegation that he was no longer a sheriff at the time of the auction sale and the issuance/notarization of the certificate.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. First, on technical grounds, petitioner failed to state the material date of filing his motion for reconsideration of the NLRC decision as required by SC Circular No. 1-88, a sufficient ground for outright dismissal. Furthermore, the NLRC decision had become final and executory. Even disregarding technicalities, the petition fails on the merits. It was not disputed that at the time of the notice of levy, auction sale, and issuance/notarization of the certificate of sale, Sheriff Tolo was no longer holding office. Petitioner did not refute the allegations that Tolo had not been reporting for work in 1992 and had not been paid his salary as of May 1992. This unrebutted allegation created an adverse inference, supporting the NLRC’s conclusion that there was likely no actual public auction sale conducted. Without a valid public auction, the issuance of the Certificate of Sale had no legal basis, and its registration did not toll the redemption period. The Supreme Court found no reversible error in the NLRC Resolutions.