GR L 82860; (June, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-82860 June 20, 1988
Hornan C. Macamay, Pedro Alfonso, Victorio L. Tianio and Rolando D. Carpio, petitioners, vs. Melchora C. Tejano, as the Cashier III of the National Labor Relations Commission, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners Hornan C. Macamay, et al., secured a final and executory judgment for separation pay from their employer. To satisfy the judgment, the NLRC Deputy Sheriff levied on and auctioned personal properties of Delta Motors Corporation, raising P176,000. The highest bidder paid an initial P20,000, which was given to the petitioners. The remaining proceeds were deposited with respondent NLRC Cashier III Melchora C. Tejano, as the purchased properties had not yet been withdrawn by the buyer.
Subsequently, the Asset Privatization Trust (APT) intervened, obtaining a writ of injunction from the NLRC Executive Director that stayed the execution of the judgment. APT also filed a motion to annul the auction sale. The Med-Arbiter handling the case denied APT’s motion and later issued an order directing the Deputy Sheriff to deliver the properties to the auction buyer. Based on this, petitioners moved for, and were granted, an order by the same Med-Arbiter compelling the NLRC Cashier to release the P176,000 deposit to them.
ISSUE
Whether a writ of mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the NLRC Cashier to release the auction proceeds to the petitioners, given the pending injunction and the Med-Arbiter’s order for release.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition for mandamus, ruling it was premature. The legal logic is anchored on the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. The Court clarified that the Med-Arbiter who issued the release order is not the highest authority within the NLRC or the Department of Labor and Employment. A conflicting writ of injunction had been issued by the NLRC Executive Director, a superior officer, staying the execution. This created an internal administrative conflict regarding the propriety of releasing the funds.
The petitioners’ recourse was not to immediately elevate the matter to the Supreme Court but to first seek a resolution of this conflict within the NLRC’s own hierarchy. Mandamus is an extraordinary writ that commands the performance of a ministerial duty. Its issuance presupposes the absence of any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. By bypassing available administrative appeals to higher NLRC officials or commissions to resolve the contradictory orders, the petitioners failed to exhaust the remedies provided by law within the agency itself. Therefore, the Supreme Court could not properly intervene to compel the Cashier’s action at that stage.