G.R. No. 170977 April 16, 2009
JOSE C. DEL VALLE, JR. and ADOLFO C. ALEMANIA, Petitioners, vs. FRANCIS B. DY, Respondent.

FACTS

The case originated from a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary benefits filed by Clea Deocariza against L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc. and its Human Resources Officer for Bicol, Teresa Israel. Despite notices and orders sent to L.C. Big Mak’s head office in Lucena City addressed to its owner, respondent Francis Dy, the respondents in the labor case failed to file their position papers. Labor Arbiter Jose C. Del Valle, Jr. rendered a decision in favor of Deocariza, which became final and executory after no appeal was made. A Writ of Execution was issued. NLRC Sheriff Adolfo C. Alemania levied upon 33 sacks of flour and three sacks of refined sugar from L.C. Big Mak’s head office in Lucena City. Subsequently, L.C. Big Mak and Dy filed a complaint for injunction and damages with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lucena City, claiming the labor arbiter’s decision was void on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, grave abuse of discretion, violation of due process, and denial of substantial justice. They alleged that Israel was a franchisee and Deocariza was her employee, negating an employer-employee relationship between Dy and Deocariza. The RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Dy filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which granted the petition, set aside the RTC orders, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appellate court found Dy to be a stranger to the labor case and held that the sheriff’s levy on assets of a third person was beyond his authority, making it correctible by a court in a separate action.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in giving due course to Dy’s petition for certiorari despite its procedural infirmities.
2. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction over Dy’s complaint for injunction and damages.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the instant petition. On the first issue, the Court held that the remedy of appeal from the RTC’s order dismissing the complaint was available to Dy and was a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Therefore, the petition for certiorari filed before the Court of Appeals was not proper, as certiorari is only allowable when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. On the second issue, the Court ruled that the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The nature of an action is determined by the allegations of the complaint and the relief sought. Although the complaint was denominated as one for injunction and damages, it essentially challenged the legality of the labor arbiter’s decision and the execution process, which are matters falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of labor tribunals. The Court emphasized that the proper remedy for a third party claiming ownership over levied properties is to file a third-party claim in the same execution proceeding, as provided under the NLRC Rules, not a separate action in the regular courts. The Court of Appeals’ decision was reversed and set aside, and the RTC’s orders dismissing the complaint were reinstated.