GR L 21028 29; (May, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21028-29; May 27, 1966
SANTIAGO LABOR UNION alias MAGAT LABOR UNION, petitioner, vs. HON. EMILIANO TABIGNE, KING HONG and COMPANY and SANTIAGO RICE MILL, respondents.
FACTS
The petitioner, Santiago Labor Union, filed a petition for mandamus to compel Judge Emilio Tabigne of the Court of Industrial Relations to resolve its motion for execution, deposit, or bond and to issue a writ of execution unless the respondent King Hong & Company filed a bond to ensure compliance with a prior award. The motions were filed in connection with a decision of the Court of Industrial Relations en banc, which awarded overtime pay, premium compensations, and back wages to the union members. This decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Santiago Rice Mill v. Santiago Labor Union, G.R. No. L-18040, August 31, 1962. The petitioner averred that the respondent judge failed and refused to act on these motions, and that the respondents, taking advantage of this inaction, had disposed or might dispose of their properties, causing irreparable damage to the petitioners.
ISSUE
Whether a writ of mandamus should issue to compel the respondent judge to act on the motions for execution and to direct a specific resolution thereof.
RULING
No, the writ of mandamus should not issue. The Supreme Court held that while it can compel the respondent judge to act on the motions, it may not direct him to decide them in a particular way because resolving such motions involves the exercise of judicial discretion. If a judge’s decision is incorrect or contrary to law, the proper remedy is appeal, not mandamus. Furthermore, the Court found no abuse of discretion by the respondent judge. The decision to be executed did not fix the specific amounts due; thus, the judge properly directed a court examiner to determine these amounts on September 5, 1962. Additionally, the court had already issued an order on March 30, 1963, requiring the respondents to deposit P100,000.00 and post a surety bond for the same amount to guarantee payment of any obligations found owing to the union members, thereby taking measures to protect the petitioner’s interests. The petition was denied, with costs against the petitioner.