G.R. No. L-12766; May 25, 1960
PHILIPPINE SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., INC., petitioner, vs. S. JACALA, D. TIBURCIO, E. CAPULONG, H. TEJADA, G. TEJADA, D. GABITANAN, M. GABITANAN, J. DELUMPA, A. JAVIER, E. VILLAFUERTE, E. PIKE, E. ROZO, R. TULUNGAN, E. QUIJADA, F. FRANCISCO, WILDRINO LABRIOGA, JARANILLA AGUSTIN, PASQUIN FELIPE, JAIME RAFAEL, IBAÑEZ GABRIEL, GACHERO PAULINO, LUMANOG CLAUDIO, TEOFILO PRADA, S. VILLANUEVA, A. JOAQUIN, R. BACUNGAN, R. ALHAMBRA, F. DUMANDAN, G. FIGUEROA, G. PALAD, A. JAVIER, P. GONZALES, C. ESPAÑOLA, A. FELIPE, A. BOMBATE, MACARIO M. OFILADA and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents.

FACTS

On March 20, 1950, petitioner Philippine Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. (the surety) executed two performance bonds in favor of the Republic of the Philippines to guarantee the obligations of the International Construction and Engineering Company, Inc. (the contractor) for the construction of the Bugallon Bridge in Pangasinan and the Concepcion Bridge in Tarlac, pursuant to Act No. 3688. On December 4, 1950, S. Jacala and 34 other laborers (respondents) filed Case No. 529-V in the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) against the contractor, the surety, and the contractor’s officers, claiming unpaid wages and separation pay. On February 16, 1954, the CIR rendered a decision ordering the contractor and the surety to pay jointly and severally the amounts due to the employees as per payrolls, and the contractor to pay one month separation pay. No appeal was taken from this decision, making it final and executory. The surety made several payments totaling approximately P9,000.00 in partial satisfaction of the decision. On August 26, 1957, the CIR issued an alias writ of execution. The surety then filed this special civil action for certiorari to annul the CIR decision and the alias writ, and obtained a preliminary injunction. The surety argued that the CIR had no jurisdiction because, under Act No. 3688, actions on performance bonds must be brought by the Government or material/labor suppliers in the Government’s name, after contract completion and final settlement, and in the Court of First Instance of the district where the contract was to be performed. The surety also cited Cristitu Bautista vs. Auditor General (97 Phil. 244), where the Supreme Court held that the Government’s claim for cost overruns (P530,806.41) from completing the abandoned Bugallon Bridge had priority over other claims under Act No. 3688 and exhausted the bond, leaving nothing for the laborers. The Government, included as a respondent, alleged the contractor’s failure on both bridges made it liable for P530,806.41 and P15,927.00, respectively, claims which have priority.

ISSUE

Whether the writ of certiorari is a proper remedy to annul the final and executory decision of the Court of Industrial Relations and its alias writ of execution.

RULING

No. The petition for certiorari is dismissed and the preliminary injunction dissolved.
1. A writ of certiorari is only available when there is “no appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” As a party to CIR Case No. 529-V, the surety could have appealed the decision, which was a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. The surety not only failed to appeal for over three years and five months but also partially complied with the decision by making payments. Certiorari cannot be availed of under these circumstances, especially when the failure to appeal was due to the surety’s own negligence or intentional choice. The surety’s belated challenge appears motivated by the subsequent Bautista ruling.
2. The provisions of Act No. 3688 regarding the venue for actions on performance bonds (Court of First Instance of the district where the contract is performed) are procedural, not jurisdictional. Venue may be waived. The surety’s failure to appeal from the CIR decision implies an abandonment of any venue objection. Furthermore, in case of inconsistency, the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 103 (granting the CIR jurisdiction over employer-employee disputes) prevail over Act No. 3688 regarding the settlement of such labor disputes.
3. The Bautista vs. Auditor General case is not controlling. That case involved a different cause of action and different parties (a claim against the Auditor General by laborers). The right of the laborers in the present case to sue and demand payment from the surety was not in issue in Bautista.
The Court also denied a separate motion to dismiss the “appeal” filed by the respondent CIR, clarifying that the surety’s petition was properly filed as a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 67 of the Rules of Court.