GR L 57005; (November, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. L-57005-07 November 23, 1988
IMPERIAL VEGETABLE WORKERS UNION, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE HON. BENJAMIN A. VEGA, ET AL., and IMPERIAL VEGETABLE OIL COMPANY, INC., respondents.
FACTS
The petitioners, comprising both regular and casual workers of Imperial Vegetable Oil Company, Inc., were involved in a labor dispute. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), in a decision dated May 28, 1980, ruled that the striking regular workers were not entitled to reinstatement due to the company’s legitimate hiring of permanent replacements after the strike. However, considering the circumstances, the NLRC awarded them separation pay equivalent to one-half month’s salary for every year of service. The petitioners did not appeal this decision on its merits.
Instead, on September 17, 1980, the petitioners filed a motion for a writ of execution with the NLRC to enforce the monetary award. When the NLRC withheld a partial award of P49,626.25 pending final computation by the Labor Arbiter, the petitioners filed a petition for mandamus with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila to compel its release. The respondent CFI judge dismissed the petition. The petitioners then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari, now also challenging the NLRC’s underlying decision that granted separation pay instead of reinstatement with backwages.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the respondent CFI judge correctly dismissed the petition for mandamus. A secondary, but time-barred, issue is the validity of the NLRC’s decision awarding separation pay instead of reinstatement.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, upholding the CFI’s dismissal order. On the mandamus aspect, the Court held the CFI correctly dismissed the petition for two reasons. First, the CFI had no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against the NLRC, as the two bodies are of co-equal rank under the doctrine established in Ambrosio v. Salvador. Second, the petition lacked a cause of action because there was, at that time, nothing to compel; the NLRC’s delay was due to the ongoing and necessary computation by the Labor Arbiter to determine the exact beneficiaries and amounts, which was a proper administrative function.
Regarding the belated challenge to the NLRC’s substantive decision, the Court ruled it was filed out of time. The decision was rendered on May 28, 1980, and the petitioners took no action to appeal or question it for over three months. Their subsequent act of filing for execution constituted an acceptance of the judgment. While acceptance of separation pay does not always waive the right to contest dismissal, the petitioners in this case never protested the NLRC’s ruling initially and actively sought to enforce it, foreclosing a later challenge on the merits. The Court noted that, in any event, the NLRC decision was sound and showed no grave abuse of discretion.
Finally, the Court directed the NLRC to ensure the distribution of any remaining balance of the award, either pursuant to a referenced compromise agreement or, if unavailable, through the immediate resumption and completion of computation hearings.