GR 158971; (August, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 158971 . August 25, 2005
MARIANO Y. SIY, et al., Petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ELENA EMBANG, Respondents.
FACTS
This case originated from a complaint for illegal dismissal filed by Elena Embang against Mariano Y. Siy and Philippine Agri Trading Center. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Embang, ordering her reinstatement with full backwages. This decision was affirmed with modification by the NLRC, then subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeals and finally by the Supreme Court, whose September 22, 2003 Resolution became final and executory on December 30, 2003. Following finality, Embang moved for a writ of execution before the Labor Arbiter.
Atty. Frederico P. Quevedo, counsel for Siy, entered his appearance and opposed the motion, alleging that Embang had rejected offers of reinstatement and thus her backwages should be computed only until the date of the Labor Arbiter’s initial decision. Despite the Labor Arbiter’s order granting the writ of execution, Atty. Quevedo filed an appeal with the NLRC, insisting the order was issued with grave abuse of discretion. Embang moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of a required bond and filed a motion to cite Atty. Quevedo in contempt for unduly delaying execution.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Frederico P. Quevedo is guilty of indirect contempt for impeding the execution of a final and executory judgment.
RULING
Yes, Atty. Quevedo is guilty of indirect contempt. The Supreme Court emphasized that a judgment that has attained finality becomes immutable and unalterable. The Labor Arbiter’s order granting the motion for execution was a mere incident in the execution of a final judgment, not a new judgment subject to appeal. By filing an appeal against this unappealable order, Atty. Quevedo engaged in a procedural maneuver that constituted an abuse of court processes, directly impeding the execution of a final decision.
The Court’s legal logic is grounded on the principle of finality of judgments and the proper use of judicial remedies. Atty. Quevedo’s claim of a supervening event (alleged refusal of reinstatement) did not justify his actions; the proper course was to comply with the writ and, if warranted, raise the matter in the execution proceedings before the Labor Arbiter, not by filing a frivolous appeal. His obstinate refusal to respect the final judgment, through a series of pleadings and an improper appeal, tended to degrade the administration of justice and obstruct the lawful execution process. This conduct violated Canon 12 and Rule 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandate a lawyer’s duty to assist in the speedy administration of justice and prohibit unduly delaying a case or impeding the execution of a judgment. Consequently, Atty. Quevedo was found guilty of indirect contempt and fined ₱30,000. The Court also referred the matter to the IBP Committee on Bar Discipline for further investigation.