ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.

com™

Like 0
Tweet Share Share
Tweet Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2016 > September 2016 Decisions > G.R. No. 181387,
September 05, 2016 - CAMERON GRANVILLE 3 ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., Petitioner, v. UE MONTHLY
ASSOCIATES, UEAMI WORKERS UNION NFL AND ALFREDO BASI, Respondent.:

Custom Search Search

G.R. No. 181387, September 05, 2016 - CAMERON GRANVILLE 3 ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., Petitioner,
v. UE MONTHLY ASSOCIATES, UEAMI WORKERS UNION NFL AND ALFREDO BASI, Respondent.

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 181387, September 05, 2016

CAMERON GRANVILLE 3 ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., Petitioner, v. UE MONTHLY ASSOCIATES,

UEAMI WORKERS UNION NFL AND ALFREDO BASI, Respondent.

DECISION

SERENO, C.J.:

In this Petition for Review on Certiorari,1 Cameron Granville 3 Asset Management, Inc. (Cameron) assails
the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision2 and Resolution3 in CA-G.R. SP No. 88049, which affirmed the levy
and sale of certain personal properties allegedly mortgaged to Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company
(Metrobank), petitioner's predecessor-in-interest. These properties were sold by the Sheriff of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) after Labor Arbiter Joselito Cruz Villarosa (LA) denied
Metrobank's third-party claim on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. Both the NLRC and the CA
affirmed this ruling.

FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS

DebtKollect Company, Inc.
The dispute in this case stemmed from the levy and execution sale made by NLRC Sheriff Manolito G.
Manuel.4 The subject of the execution were certain machinery, equipment, tools and implements owned
by UE Automotive Manufacturing, Inc. (UEAMI), and located at its manufacturing plant at General
Mascardo St., Caloocan City.5 The levy was made pursuant to a final and executory NLRC judgment
against UEAMI in an illegal dismissal case, in which it was ordered to pay P53,729,534 to complainants
UEAMI Monthly Associates and UE Automotive Workers Union-NFL.6 chanrobleslaw

ChanRobles Intellectual Property
Division
September-2016 Jurisprudence
G.R. No. 211608, September 07, 2016 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MENARDO
BOMBASI Y VERGARA, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 195975, September 05, 2016 - TAINA
MANIGQUE-STONE, Petitioner, v. CATTLEYA LAND,
INC., AND SPOUSES TROADIO B. TECSON AND
ASUNCION ORTALIZ-TECSON, Respondents.
G.R. No. 212171, September 07, 2016 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MERCURY
DELA CRUZ ALIAS "DEDAY," Accused-Appellant.
A.C. No. 10565, September 07, 2016 - PROSECUTOR
RHODNA A. BACATAN, Complainant, v. ATTY. MERARI
D. DADULA, Respondent.
A.C. No. 7045, September 05, 2016 - THE LAW FIRM
OF CHAVEZ MIRANDA ASEOCHE REPRESENTED BY ITS
FOUNDING PARTNER, ATTY. FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ,
Complainant, v. ATTYS. RESTITUTO S. LAZARO AND
RODEL R. MORTA, Respondents.
G.R. No. 204423, September 14, 2016 - PHILIPPINE
SCIENCE HIGH SCHOOL-CAGAYAN VALLEY CAMPUS,
Petitioner, v. PIRRA CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES,
Respondent.
I.P.I. No. 16-244-CA-J, September 06, 2016 - Re:
VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF CATALINA Z. ALILING
AGAINST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MA. LUISA C.
QUIJANO-PADILLA, COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA
RELATIVE TO CA-G.R. CV NO. 103042
G.R. No. 203576, September 14, 2016 - NAGA
CENTRUM, INC., REPRESENTED BY AIDA KELLY
YUBUCO, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES RAMON J. ORZALES
AND NENITA F. ORZALES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 192754, September 07, 2016 - LEONIS
On 6 September 2002, Metrobank filed an Affidavit of Third-Party Claim7 with the LA. Through its Senior
Manager Ramon S. Miranda, the bank claimed that the machines and equipment levied upon by Sheriff
Manuel were covered by three mortgage documents executed in favor of the bank by UEAMI, i.e., a
Mortgage Trust Indenture,8 an Amended Mortgage Trust Indenture,9 and a Second Amended Mortgage
Trust Indenture.10 chanrobleslaw
As expected, respondents opposed Metrobank's third-party claim.11 They asserted that they were not
bound by the mortgage agreements cited by the bank, because the instruments were not registered and
consequently had no effect on third parties.12 chanrobleslaw
On 3 October 2002, Metrobank filed with the LA a Reply to Comment to Third-party Claim with Motion to
Set Hearing.13 Aside from emphasizing the superiority of its claim over the property, the bank also
manifested its intention to present evidence of its mortgage lien over the chattels. Consequently, it
requested that the third-party claim be set for hearing.14 It appears from the records that this motion
was not acted upon by the LA.
THE RULING OF THE LA
In an Order dated 5 December 2002,15 the LA denied Metrobank's third-party claim: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
After a careful perusal of the records of the case and contending positions of the
protagonists, this Office denies all the third-party claims filed by claimants for failure to
[establish] proof of their actual ownership of the contested properties owned by
respondent UE Automotive Manufacturing, Inc.
At most, what can be easily discerned from the attachment of the third-party claims are all
instruments which [have] been long overdue, and belatedly raised now, when the same
has been levied by the Sheriff of this Office.
After reviewing the entire records of the case, this Office finds and so holds that there is no
more compelling reasons not to proceed with the sale of the levied properties because this
will unlawfully [deprive] complainants, the prevailing party, of the fruits of the
execution.16 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
However, in the interest of justice, the LA directed Metrobank and other third-party claimants to post a
bond to defer the execution sale. The bank complied with the Order by posting a surety bond.17
Thereafter, it filed a Notice of Appeal and a Memorandum of Appeal with the NLRC to challenge the ruling
of the LA.
Despite the pending appeal, the auction sale of the properties was carried out on 27 January 2003
following the submission of an indemnity bond by respondents.18 The properties were sold to Alfredo B.
Basi as the highest bidder with a bid price of P53,729,534, and a Sheriff's Certificate of Sale19 was later
issued in his favor.
THE RULING OF THE NLRC
In a Resolution dated 19 May 2004,20 the NLRC affirmed the Order of the LA denying Metrobank's third-
party claim. In addition to the grounds cited by the LA, the NLRC rejected the claim for the following
reasons: (a) the bank's failure to attach a board resolution showing that Ramon S. Miranda was
authorized by the board of directors to prepare and file its Affidavit of Third-party Claim;21 (b) absence of
substantial evidence in support of the assertion that the mortgage documents were duly registered with
the Register of Deeds of Kalookan City, and that the proper documentary stamp taxes were paid;22 and
(c) failure to establish its right over the properties as against respondents. On this third ground, the
NLRC explained: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Furthermore, Metrobank failed to incorporate in its Third-party Claim and in its mortgage
documents a schedule, enumeration and/or description of the chattels supposedly covered
by the same.
Besides, Metrobank was not able to prove with any substantial documents that the chattels
allegedly covered by the mortgage documents are the very same properties attached and
sold at public auction. Indeed, how could it possibly do so, when it could not even
incorporate in its mortgage documents the required schedule, enumeration and or
description they supposedly cover?
Lastly but most significantly, Metrobank was not able to allege and prove with any
substantial evidence that it had already foreclosed the chattels by reason of the default of
UEAMI, the mortgagor in the mortgage documents, of its obligations in favor of Metrobank
and the other creditors - beneficiaries in such documents. Correspondingly, still bereft of
the right to possess such chattels, Metrobank has likewise no right to claim the same by
way of a third-party claim.23 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Metrobank sought reconsideration of the foregoing ruling.24 It asserted that the grounds cited by the
NLRC to deny the claim were never raised by the parties.25 The bank also contended that it was cralawred
deprived of due process because the LA resolved the third-party claim without acting upon its motion to
set the case for hearing. This lack of due process allegedly resulted in its inability to adduce the evidence
necessary to prove its allegations. In its Motion for Reconsideration, Metrobank declared: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
If the third-party claim was set for hearing, Metrobank would have adduced evidence to
prove:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
a) The authority of Atty. Ramon S. Miranda to represent Metrobank, as shown by the
Secretary's Certificate dated August 2, 2002, machine copy of which is hereto
attached as Annex "G";
b) Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company is the successor-in-interest of Philippine
banking Corporation
c) The genuineness and due execution of the Chattel Mortgage, Amendment of
Chattel Mortgage, Mortgage Trust Indenture, Amended Mortgage Trust Indenture
and the Second Amended Trust Indenture, with the respective annexes thereto,
NAVIGATION CO., INC. AND WORLD MARINE
PANAMA S.A., Petitioners, v. EDUARDO C. OBRERO
AND MERCEDITA P. OBRERO, Respondents.
G.R. No. 181387, September 05, 2016 - CAMERON
GRANVILLE 3 ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., Petitioner,
v. UE MONTHLY ASSOCIATES, UEAMI WORKERS
UNION NFL AND ALFREDO BASI, Respondent.
G.R. No. 206808-09, September 07, 2016 - LOCAL
WATER UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION FOR PROGRESS (LEAP), MELANIO B.
CUCHAPIN II, GREARDO* G. PERU, ROLAND S.
CABAHUG, GLORIA P. VELASQUEZ, ERLINDA G.
VILLANUEVA, TEODORO M. REYNOSO, FERNANDO L.
NICANDRO, JOSEPHINE P. SIMENE, LAMBERTO R.
RIVERA, REYNALDO M. VIDA, and RUCTICO** B.
TUTOL, Petitioners, v. LOCAL WATER UTILITIES
ADMINISTRATION (LWUA) and DEPARTMENT OF
BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, Respondents.
G.R. No. 210798, September 14, 2016 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BEVERLY
VILLANUEVA Y MANALILI @ BEBANG, Accused-
Appellant.
G.R.No. 186199, September 07, 2016 - EDGARDO A.
QUILO AND ADNALOY VILLAHERMOSA, Petitioners, v.
TEODULA BAJAO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 187942, September 07, 2016 - THE ROMAN
CATHOLIC BISHOP OF TUGUEGARAO, Petitioner, v.
FLORENTINA PRUDENCIO, NOW DECEASED,
SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS, NAMELY: EXEQUIEL,
LORENZO, PRIMITIVO, MARCELINO, JULIANA,
ALFREDO AND ROSARIO, ALL SURNAMED DOMINGO;
AVELINA PRUDENCIO, ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND
VICTORIANO DIMAYA; ERNESTO PENALBER AND
RODRIGO TALANG; SPOUSES ISIDRO CEPEDA AND
SALVACION DIVINI, NOW DECEASED, SUBSTITUTED
BY HER HEIRS, NAMELY: MARCIAL, PEDRO AND LINA,
ALL SURNAMED CEPEDA, Respondents.
A.C. No. 10574 (Formerly CBD Case No. 11-3047),
September 20, 2016 - PATRICK R. FABIE,
Complainant, v. ATTY. LEONARDO M. REAL,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 192132, September 14, 2016 - HEIRS OF
ZOSIMO Q. MARAVILLA, NAMELY, ZOSIMO W.
MARAVILLA, JR., YVETTE MARAVILLA AND RICHARD
MARAVILLA, REPRESENTED BY ZOSIMO W.
MARAVILLA, JR., Petitioners, v. PRIVALDO TUPAS,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 206629, September 14, 2016 - NARCISO T.
MATIS, Petitioner, v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 210940, September 06, 2016 - SOCIAL
SECURITY SYSTEM, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON
AUDIT, Respondent.
G.R. No. 201320, September 14, 2016 - WILSON T.
LIM, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MILITARY AND OTHER LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICES (MOLEO) AND P/S INSP.
EUSTIQUIO FUENTES, Respondents.
G.R. No. 219815, September 14, 2016 - J.O.S.
MANAGING BUILDERS, INC. AND EDUARDO B.
OLAGUER, Petitioners, v. UNITED OVERSEAS BANK
PHILIPPINES (FORMERLY KNOWN AS WESTMONT
BANK), EMMANUEL T. MANGOSING AND DAVID GOH
CHAI ENG, Respondents.
G.R. No. 220732, September 06, 2016 - ELMER G.
SINDAC @ "TAMER," Petitioner, v. THE PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. Nos. 190015 & 190019, September 14, 2016 -
GERALDINE MICHELLE B. FALLARME AND ANDREA
MARTINEZ-GACOS, Petitioners, v. SAN JUAN DE DIOS
EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION, INC., CHONA M.
HERNANDEZ, VALERIANO ALEJANDRO III, SISTER
CONCEPTION GABATINO, D.C., AND SISTER
JOSEFINA QUIACHON, D.C., Respondent.
G.R. No. 214238, September 14, 2016 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ESMAEL
ZACARIA Y WAGAS, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 191170, September 14, 2016 - CAMERON
GRANVILLE 3 ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., Petitioner,
v. FIDEL O. CHUA AND FILIDEN REALTY AND
DEVELOPMENT CORP., Respondent.
G.R. No. 219855, September 06, 2016 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROMEO
LINTAG Y LAUREOLA, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 199397, September 14, 2016 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DARWIN
GITO Y CORLIN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT., Respondent.
G.R. No. 194561, September 14, 2016 -
DRUGSTORES ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES,
and that said documents were duly registered with the proper Registry of
Deeds. It bears stressing that the Registry of Deeds will not allow registration
unless the documentary stamp taxes have been paid. Machine copies of the
Chattel Mortgage, Amendment of Chattel Mortgage, Mortgage Trust Indenture,
Amended Mortgage Trust Indenture and the Second Amended Trust Indenture are
hereto attached as Annexes "H", "I", "J", "K" and "L", respectively.
d) The chattels levied upon and sold at public auction by NLRC Sheriff
Manolito G. Manuel are included in the list of chattels annexed to the
Chattel Mortgage and Amendment to Chattel Mortgage and are properly
described therein, Annexes "H" and "I".
e) The genuineness and due execution of the Certificate of Sale dated January 12,
1999, showing that the chattels were already foreclosed and sold at public
auction by Metrobank, machine copy of which is hereto attached as Annex "M".
Aside from the foregoing, Metrobank was prevented from presenting evidence to prove
that the levy made by NLRC Sheriff Manuel over the chattels belonging to/owned by
Metrobank was null and void.26 (Emphases in the original)
The NLRC denied the motion notwithstanding the documentary evidence submitted by Metrobank. In its
Resolution,27 the former maintained that the Secretary's Certificates and other documents presented by
Metrobank did not sufficiently prove Miranda's authority to represent the bank or the bank's right to claim
the properties. The NLRC likewise noted that all the pieces of evidence Metrobank intended to present
before the LA had already been passed upon on appeal; hence, the issue of denial of due process had
been rendered moot: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Thirdly, Metrobank has not, up to now, shown with substantial evidence that the properties
allegedly covered by the mortgage documents are the very same chattels levied and sold
at public auction by Sheriff Manolito G. Manuel. Although it resubmitted, in its Motion for
Reconsideration, copies of its mortgage documents, such documents are nevertheless
merely photocopies, not originals or certified true copies, and therefore probatively
valueless for being unauthenticated. Besides, they do not show similarity between the
aforementioned two (2) sets of chattels.28 chanrobleslaw
xxxx
Our sight is not lost of the feet that Metrobank asserts in its reconsideration motion that it
was deprived of due process because its Third-party Claim was resolved without its motion
to set such claim for hearing (incorporated in its Reply to Comment to Third-party Claim
dated October 3, 2002) having been passed upon, resulting in its failure to submit all its
shreds (sic) of documentary evidence in support of its claim.
xxxx
[T]his claim of due process deprivation is now academically moot, since all the
documentary proofs of Metrobank have already been passed upon by the Labor Arbiters
below in the rendition of their Orders and by Us in the rendition of Our Resolutions
including this Resolution.29 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The denial of its Motion for Reconsideration prompted Metrobank to elevate the matter to the CA via a
Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. It argued that the NLRC committed
grave abuse of discretion in (a) disregarding the fact that the third-party claim of petitioner was denied
by the LA without the benefit of a hearing;30 and (b) resolving matters that had not been raised as
issues by the parties.31 chanrobleslaw
Metrobank subsequently filed a Motion to Substitute/Join Cameron Granville 3 Asset Management, Inc.,
as plaintiff.32 The former cited petitioner's right as the transferee of the bank's assignee Asia Recovery
Corporation. The CA granted the motion33 and allowed Cameron to join the suit as a plaintiff.
THE RULING OF THE CA
In a Decision34 dated 1 October 2007, the CA dismissed the Petition for Certiorari and ruled that the
NLRC did not act with grave abuse of discretion in affirming the LA's denial of the third-party claim filed
by Metrobank.35 The appellate court declared that under the Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, the LA was
not obligated to conduct a hearing before deciding the claim:
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Petitioner anchored its claim on the provision of Section 2, Rule VI of the NLRC Manual on
the Execution of Judgment, promulgated on February 24, 1993, which reads, to wit: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
xxx Upon receipt of the third-party claim, all proceedings with
respect to the execution of the property subject of the third-
party claim shall automatically be suspended and the
Commission or Labor Arbiter who issued the writ shall
conduct a hearing with due notice to all parties
concerned and resolve the validity of the claim within
ten (10) working days from receipt thereof. Where the
decision is rendered by the Labor Arbiter, it is appealable to
the Commission within ten (10) working days from notice. The
Commission shall resolve the appeal within the same period."
(Emphasis and underlining supplied)
xxxx
The foregoing provision was, however, superseded by Section 9, Rule VIII of the Rules of
Procedure of the National Labor Relation Commission, as amended by Resolution No. 01-
02, Series of 2002, which provides, viz.:
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Section 9. RESOLUTION OF THIRD-PARTY CLAIM. - Should a third-party
claim be filed during execution of the judgment award, the third-party
claimant shall execute an affidavit stating his title to property or
possession thereof with supporting evidence and shall file the same
with the sheriff and copies thereof served upon the Labor Arbiter or
proper officer issuing the writ. Upon receipt of the third-party claim, all
proceedings, with respect to the execution of the property subject of the
INC. AND NORTHERN LUZON DRUG CORPORATION,
Petitioners, v. NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY
AFFAIRS; DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH; DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE; BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE;
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT; AND DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
WELFARE AND DEVELOPMENT, Respondent.
G.R. No. 190271, September 14, 2016 - TRANSIMEX
CO., Petitioner, v. MAFRE ASIAN INSURANCE CORP.,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 182604, September 27, 2016 - DR.
ROLANDO B. MANGUNE, DR. RENE A. ARCE AND
EMMA E. TAÑAFRANCA, IN THEIR RESPECTIVE
PERSONAL CAPACITIES AND AS ATTORNEYS-IN-FACT
FOR AND IN BEHALF OF DR. VIRGINIA M. AGUILAS,
ROLANDO R. ANATALIO, DR. LEA M. DE LEON-ASI,
CATALINO N. ATANACIO, JR., JULIANA M. BATALLER,
MA. LUISA B. CAÑEZA, LILIAN C. CANILAO, RANIEL S.
CAPADA, FLORENDO A. DAYUS, JENNIFER D.
PAGULAYAN, BIENVENIDO C. DE VILLA, JOSE A.
DELOS REYES, CYNTHIA A. DIAZ, ANNA LEAH D.
DIPATUAN, MADELAINE M. ESTOCAPIO, DR. MARIA
SONIA YEE-FESTIN, MARIO E. FLORENDO, RUEL E.
FORTUNADO, NATIVIDAD A. GAMIAO, IRMA Q.
ANDAL, CHARITO C. LAZAM, AGNES R. LOVINDINO,
EVELYN M. MABAG, RECHILDA B. MACAFE, ZENAIDA
M. MADIANGKIT, ANGELICA T. MALAZARTE,
DOMINGO P. MANAY, DR. EDGAR ORVEN M. MORTEL,
SATURNINO E. QUIBAN, MARITES J. RAMOS, DR.
MELINDA S.L. A. RAZALAN, BAITONGGAL L.
SAUDAGAL, DR. JOHN ALBERT V. TABLIZO, JULIETA
T. TERANIA, ANNIE B. TRINIDAD, JUDY T. AVNER,
DR. ROMEO F. UY, AVELONA A. VEA, MINVILUZ G.
VERA CRUZ, PEÑAFLOR M. VILLAFLOR, JR., AND DR.
LEOPOLDO P. SISON, JR., ALL OF TAGUIG-PATEROS
DISTRICT HOSPITAL, Petitioners, v. HONORABLE
SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, HONORABLE
SECRETARY FRANCISCO DUQUE III, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH, THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF TAGUIG AS
REPRESENTED BY ITS MAYOR, HONORABLE
SIGFRIDO R. TINGA, AND THE MUNICIPAL
GOVERNMENT OF PATEROS, AS REPRESENTED BY ITS
MAYOR, HONORABLE ROSENDO CAPCO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 210200, September 13, 2016 - JULIET B.
DANO, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
AND MARIE KAREN JOY B. DIGAL, Respondents.;
MARIA EMILY D. DAGAANG, Petitioner-Intervenor.
A.C. No. 11095 [Formerly CBD Case No. 11-3140],
September 20, 2016 - EUFEMIA A. CAMINO,
Complainant, v. ATTY. RYAN REY L. PASAGUI,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 188952, September 21, 2016 - (1) Whether the CA erred in applying the Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, which does not
PEÑAFRANCIA SHIPPING CORPORATION AND SANTA
CLARA SHIPPING CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. 168
SHIPPING LINES, INC., Respondent.
A.C. No. 11238, September 21, 2016 - ATTY.
MYLENE S. YUMUL-ESPINA, Complainant, v. ATTY.
BENEDICTO D. TABAQUERO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 187922, September 21, 2016 - MARPHIL
EXPORT CORPORATION AND IRENEO LIM,
Petitioners, v. ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION,
SUBSTITUTED BY PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 188646, September 21, 2016 - GEORGE C.
CORDERO, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF NURSING,
Respondent.
A.C. No. 10150, September 21, 2016 - GINA E.
ENDAYA, Complainant, v. ATTY. EDGARDO O. PALAY,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 185765, September 28, 2016 - PHILIPPINE
ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. PILHINO
SALES CORPORATION, Respondent.
G.R. No. 184237, September 21, 2016 - HENRY H.
TENG, Petitioner, v. LAWRENCE C. TING, EDMUND
TING AND ANTHONY TING, Respondent.
G.R. No. 222740, September 28, 2016 - ST. LUKE'S
COLLEGE OF MEDICINE-WILLIAM H. QUASHA
MEMORIAL FOUNDATION, DR. BRIGIDO L.
CARANDANG, AND DR. ALEJANDRO P. ORTIGAS
Petitioners, v. SPOUSES MANUEL AND ESMERALDA
PEREZ AND SPOUSES ERIC AND JURISITA QUINTOS,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 211680, September 21, 2016 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. BELBAN SIC-OPEN Y
DIMAS, Appellant.
G.R. No. 193837, September 21, 2016 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RENATO M.
PANGAN, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 224804, September 21, 2016 - EFREN R.
LEYNES, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
third-party claim, shall automatically be suspended. The Labor Arbiter
who issued the writ may require the third-party claimant to adduce
additional evidence in support of his third-party claim and to post a
cash or surety bond equivalent to the amount of his claim, as provided for in
Section 6, Rule VI, without prejudice to the posting by the prevailing party
of a supersedeas bond in an amount equivalent to that posted by the third-
party claimant, and resolve the propriety of such claim within ten (10)
working days from submission of the claim for resolution. (Emphasis and
underlining supplied)
The aforesaid provision of the NLRC Rules of procedure precludes the necessity of
conducting a hearing where, at the time of execution of its judgment, the labor arbiter is
confronted with the issue involving the resolution of a third-party claim. Pursuant to the
foregoing, it is sufficient if the labor arbiter receives the third-party claimant's affidavit
stating his title to property or possession thereof with supporting evidence, and if
necessary, the labor arbiter who issued the writ may require the third-party claimant to
adduce additional evidence in support of his third-party claim. From thence, the labor
arbiter is required to resolve the propriety of such claim within ten (10) working days from
submission of the claim for resolution. It is thus clear that the labor arbiter is no longer
required to conduct a hearing on the third-party claim for as long as the third-party
claimant is allowed to submit his affidavit stating his claim of ownership or possession
thereof with supporting evidence and, if necessary, given the opportunity to adduce
additional evidence.
Jurisprudential declarations are rich to the effect that the essence of due process is simply
an opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to
explain one's side. A formal or trial type hearing is not at all times and in all instances
essential to due process, the requirements of which are satisfied where the parties are
afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy.36
(Citations omitted; emphases in the original)
The CA also rejected the argument of Metrobank that the latter's mortgage lien was a specially preferred
credit that was entitled to precedence over the labor claim of respondents.37 chanrobleslaw
Petitioner and Metrobank sought reconsideration of the Decision. Their motion was, however, denied by
the CA.38 chanrobleslaw
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT
Petitioner seeks the reversal of the assailed Decision and Resolution on the following grounds: (a) the
failure of the CA to adhere to Jang Lim v. CA,39 in which this Court purportedly applied the NLRC Sheriff's
Manual on Execution, and not the NLRC Rules of Procedure, in resolving a third-party claim; and (b) the
refusal of the CA to consider Metrobank's mortgage lien as a specially preferred credit.
In a Resolution40 dated 16 April 2008, this Court required respondents to comment on the Petition.
However, the repeated attempts to serve the Resolution on respondents failed. Accordingly, We resolved
to consider the Resolution to have been served upon respondents, and the latter to have waived their
right to comment on the Petition.41 chanrobleslaw
ISSUES
This case presents the following issues for resolution:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
require the LA to conduct a hearing before deciding Metrobank's third-party claim
(2) Whether the CA erred in denying Metrobank's third-party claim
OUR RULING
We DENY the Petition.
This Court agrees with the CA that a hearing is not required before a third-party claim can be decided by
the LA, albeit for a different reason than the supposed repeal of Rule IV, Section 2 of the 1993 NLRC
Manual on Execution of Judgment (1993 Manual). Furthermore, the Court believes that Metrobank has
failed to present sufficient evidence of the third-party claim.
Third-party claims may be resolved even without a full-blown hearing provided claimants are
given an opportunity to be heard.
Petitioner's main argument concerns the supposed failure of the LA to conduct an evidentiary hearing
before resolving the third-party claim. Petitioner insists that its right to due process was violated,
because such a hearing is required under Rule IV, Section 2 of the 1993 Manual.42 In support of its
assertion, it cites Jang Lim v. CA, in which this Court supposedly applied the 1993 Manual, instead of the
contradictory provisions of the 2002 NLRC Revised Rules of Procedure (2002 NLRC Rules).43
chanrobleslaw
The CA, however, disagreed with petitioner's stance. It refused to apply the 1993 Manual because Section
9, Rule VIII of the 2002 NLRC Rules, had supposedly superseded the 1993 Manual's provisions on third-
party claims.44 chanrobleslaw
While this Court sustains the conclusion that the 1993 Manual does not govern this dispute, it does not
agree that the 1993 Manual was repealed by the 2002 NLRC Rules. Our view is that Rule VI of the 1993
Manual was superseded by a new version of the same manual enacted by the NLRC in July 2002.45
Section 1, Rule VI of this 2002 Manual on Execution of Judgment, provides:
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
SECTION 1. Proceedings. SHOULD A THIRD-PARTY CLAIM BE FILED DURING EXECUTION
OF THE JUDGMENT AWARD, THE THIRD-PARTY CLAIMANT shall EXECUTE an affidavit
STATING his title TO PROPERTY or possession thereof WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE and
shall file the same with the sheriff and copies thereof served upon the Commission or
Labor Arbiter who issued the writ and upon the prevailing party. Upon receipt of the third-
party claim, all proceedings, with respect to the execution of the property subject of the
third-party claim, shall automatically be suspended. The Commission or Labor Arbiter who
issued the writ MAY REQUIRE THE THIRD-PARTY CLAIMANT TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL
EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS THIRD-PARTY CLAIM AND TO POST A CASH OR SURETY
BOND EQUIVALENT TO THE AMOUNT OF HIS CLAIM AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 6,
RULE VI, OF THE NLRC RULES OF PROCEDURE, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE POSTING BY
THE PREVAILING PARTY OF A SUPERSEDEAS BOND IN AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO THAT
POSTED BY THE THIRD-PARTY CLAIMANT. The PROPRIETY of the THIRD-PARTY claim
Respondent.
G.R. No. 215072, September 07, 2016 - PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF THE LATE
IRENEO AND CARIDAD ENTAPA, NAMELY: ROSARIO
ENTAPA-ORPEZA, JULIANNE E. HAMM,1 CERINA G.
ENTAPA, WINSTON G. ENTAPA (DECEASED)
REPRESENTED BY HIS SPOUSE, NINFA LAMISTOZA-
ENTAPA, FRANKLIN G. ENTAPA, MARINA E. SCHACHT,
AND ELVIRA G. ENTAPA, Respondents.
G.R. No. 201354, September 21, 2016 - PABLO M.
PADILLA, JR. AND MARIA LUISA P. PADILLA,
Petitioners, v. LEOPOLDO MALICSI, LITO CASINO,
AND AGRIFINO GUANES, Respondents.
G.R. No. 183947, September 21, 2016 - RIZAL
COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.
TEODORO G. BERNARDINO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 204891, September 14, 2016 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. REYNALDO ABAYON Y
APONTE, Appellant.
A.C. No. 11064, September 27, 2016 - BIENVENIDA
FLOR SUAREZ, Complainant, v. ATTY. ELEONORA.
MARAVILLA-ONA, Respondent.
A.M. No. P-09-2621 [Formerly OCA-I.P.I. No. 08-
2939-P], September 20, 2016 - OFFICE OF THE
COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. EDUARDO
T. UMBLAS, LEGAL RESEARCHER, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, BRANCH 33, BALLESTEROS, CAGAYAN,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 208979, September 21, 2016 -
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM,
Petitioner, v. ROGELIO F. MANALO, Respondent.
A.C. No. 11099, September 27, 2016 - LILY FLORES-
SALADO, MINDA FLORES LURA, AND FE V. FLORES,
Complainants, v. ATTY. ROMAN A. VILLANUEVA, JR.
Respondent.
A.C. No. 7348, September 27, 2016 - ROUEL YAP
PARAS, Complainant, v. ATTY. JUSTO P. PARAS,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 208067, September 14, 2016 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. RONNIE R. LIBRIAS,
Appellant.
G.R. No. 211553, September 13, 2016 - LEANDRO B.
VERCELES, JR., Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON
AUDIT, Respondent.
G.R. No. 208089, September 28, 2016 - PHILIPPINE
TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC., STEALTH MARITIME
CORPORATION AND CARLOS SALINAS, Petitioners, v.
CASIANO F. SALADAS, JR., Respondent.
G.R. No. 217356, September 07, 2016 - DOROTEO
C. GAERLAN, (DECEASED) SUBSTITUTED BY HIS SON,
RAYMOND G. GAERLAN, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL BANK, Respondent.
G.R. No. 222424, September 21, 2016 - FONTANA
DEVELOPMENT CORP., DENNIS PAK AS GENERAL
MANAGER, PASTOR ISAAC AS DIRECTOR OF HUMAN
RESOURCES, CHRIS CHENG* AS DEPUTY GROUP
FINANCIAL CONTROLLER, JESUS CHUA,
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL FELICIANO, ALMA
EREDIANO, LEILANI VALIENTE, MAN CHOI AS GROUP
FINANCIAL CONTROLLER, AND JAIME VILLAREAL AS
CHIEF ENGINEER, Petitioners, v. SASCHA
VUKASINOVIC, Respondent.
G.R. No. 221864, September 14, 2016 - CELERNA
CALAYAG, AMELIA ORFIANO, MARILYN HIBE,
ERNESTO CLARIN, NARCISO UNGSOD, BONIFACIO
TORIDA, BOB ILLUT, EVELYN BAJET, ELORDE
ILUSTRISIMO, ENRICO DETIQUEZ, JAIME CASTRO,
JOSEFINA DAMALERIO, CARIDAD LERUM, NOVA
FAJARDO, DANILO DELA CRUZ, ALBERTO FAUSTO,
ESTELLA GELLI, KATHERINE DELA CRUZ, HEIDEE
LAUREL, NISSAN LAUREL, VICENTE CHUA, ARMELA
MARTIN, MELINDA BATIANCILA, GEMMA REBAYA,
PRECIOUS ILUSTRISIMO, SOSAN LISBO, MARLON
TRABALLO, NIMFA DANNUG, MARILYN LABORTE,
SONIA MANZANILLA, LOURDES PARBA, ADELINA
ALIPIN, JONATHAN BASA, MARIA LIZA CABARQUIL,
RICHARD FAJICULAY, RICARDO HILARIO AND
JONATHAN TESSLER, Petitioners, v. SULPICIO LINES,
INC. (NOW KNOWN AS PHILIPPINE SPAN ASIA
CARRIER CORPORATION, DOING BUSINESS UNDER
THE NAME AND STYLE OF "SPAN ASIA CARRIER")
[FORMERLY: SULPICIO LINES, INC.], Respondent.
G.R. No. 221047, September 14, 2016 - MICHAEL A.
ONSTOTT, Petitioner, v. UPPER TAGPOS
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondent.
A.C. No. 11323, September 14, 2016 - NICOLAS
ROBERT MARTIN EGGER, Complainant, v. ATTY.
FRANCISCO P. DURAN, Respondent.
G.R. No. 221241, September 14, 2016 - MARIO N.
SHALL BE RESOLVED within ten (10) working days from SUBMISSION OF THE CLAIM FOR
RESOLUTION. The decision OF the Labor Arbiter is appealable to the Commission within
ten (10) working days from notice AND the Commission shall resolve the appeal within the
same period.
It is settled that revisions to procedural rules are applicable to pending and unresolved disputes, so long
as no injustice results from the retroactive application.46 In this case, the third-party claim was still
pending before the LA at the time the 2002 Manual on Execution of Judgment took effect. Hence,
Metrobank was obliged to comply with the new requirement as soon as it took effect. Notably, this fact
distinguishes the instant case from Jang Lim v. CA,47 which was cited by petitioner to prove the
applicability of Rule VI of the 1993 Manual to this case. We note, however, that the third-party claim in
Jang Lim was filed in 1999 and decided by the LA in 200048 before the amendment of the 1993 Manual;
hence, the revised rules were not applied to that case.
In the instant suit, Metrobank filed its third-party claim on 6 September 2002,49 or 10 days before 16
September 2002 - when the 2002 Manual took effect.50 This sequence of events explains why no
supporting evidence was attached to the bank's Affidavit of Third-Party Claim. We note, nevertheless,
that the 2002 Manual was already in effect when Metrobank filed its Reply to Comment to Third-party
Claim with Motion to Set Hearing51 on 3 October 2002. By then, it should have realized that it was
already required to submit supporting evidence of its claim under the revised rule, and that it no longer
needed to await the grant of its request for a hearing. Furthermore, since the LA resolved the claim only
on 5 December 2002, or three months after the 2002 Manual took effect, Metrobank had more than
enough time to submit the required evidentiary support of its alleged right to the property.
It must be emphasized that the amended provision gave the LA the discretion to determine whether
additional evidence needed to be presented before the third-party claim could be resolved. Since the
claimant was already required to submit proof of his alleged title to the property, the LA was allowed to
decide the claim based only on the evidence submitted. Here, the LA decided that no further hearing was
necessary, given the failure of Metrobank to submit proof of its claim to the properties. As will be further
discussed, the Court finds no reason to overturn this conclusion.
We likewise find no merit in the assertion that petitioner was denied due process. The decision of the LA
not to conduct a formal evidentiary hearing before resolving the case was justified, as the conduct of
those hearings is not mandatory in all instances, particularly in administrative proceedings.52 At its core,
due process simply means giving both parties a fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard or to explain
their side of the controversy.53 Here, Metrobank was clearly granted this opportunity through the written
submissions it presented to the LA. That these submissions supposedly failed to include all the pieces of
evidence it intended to present is entirely its fault.
In any case, Metrobank was given additional opportunities to argue its case and present its evidence
before the NLRC and the CA. These subsequent proceedings were more than enough to rectify any
alleged procedural flaw and satisfy the requirements of due process.54 chanrobleslaw
Metrobank and petitioner failed to prove their right to the properties.
At any rate, this Court sustains the conclusion of the CA with regard to the failure of Metrobank to
establish the latter's third-party claim. Our examination of the records of this case reveals that the bank
failed to present a single piece of evidence in support of a crucial point, i.e., that the properties subject of
the chattel mortgage in its favor were among those levied upon and sold by the NLRC sheriff.
We cannot ignore the fact that Metrobank was repeatedly made aware of its failure to present the
required evidence and given the opportunity to rectify the error. Throughout the proceedings before the
LA, the NLRC and the CA, its claim was rejected because there was insufficient evidence that the
properties, subject of the levy, had indeed been mortgaged to the bank. However, it never bothered to
present proof of this assertion in its various submissions before the agencies and the CA. In fact, even
when the bank identified and attached copies of the documents it allegedly intended to present in case
an evidentiary hearing would be conducted,55 its own enumeration did not include any evidence of this
particular point. It merely submitted lists of the chattels supposedly mortgaged to it without identifying
which of these items were actually levied upon and sold by the sheriff.
Petitioner also had an opportunity to prove the third-party claim before this Court. It was aware that the
CA had denied Metrobank's Petition for Certiorari due to the absence of proof that the properties
allegedly mortgaged to the bank were among those sold by the sheriff on execution. It would have been
a simple matter to identify the properties sold by the sheriff, as well as to prove that these items were
included in the list of properties mortgaged to Metrobank. Petitioner, however, still opted to attach only a
machine copy of the Notice of Levy/Sale on Execution of Personal Property, without annexes,56 to its
Petition for Review. For obvious reasons, this machine copy will not suffice as evidence.
It must be pointed out that third-party claimants in execution proceedings have the burden of proving
their right or title to the subject properties, if they want to defeat the judgment lien.57 To do so, they
must submit evidence not only of the basis of their entitlement, but also of the fact that the properties
they are claiming were indeed the subject of the execution. Failure to submit that evidence will justify the
denial of the third- party claim, as in this case.
In view of the foregoing, this Court no longer finds it necessary to resolve the other issues raised by the
parties. There was sufficient justification for the LA to deny the third-party claim, and for the NLRC and
the CA to affirm that ruling.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals Decision dated
1 October 2007 and Resolution dated 21 January 2008 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Leonardo-De Castro, Perlas-Bernabe, and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
Bersamin, J., on official leave.
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 10-35.
2 Dated 1 October 2007; penned by Associate Justice Arcangelita M. Romilla-Lontok and
concurred in by Associate Justices Romeo F. Barza and Mariano C. Del Castillo (now an
Associate Justice of this Court); id. at 37-44.
3 Dated 21 January 2008; id. at 46-47.
FELICILDA, Petitioner, v. MANCHESTEVE H. UY, 4 See Sheriff's Return dated 30 January 2003; id. at 278-284.
Respondent.
5 Id. at 279.
A.C. No. 9912, September 21, 2016 - DATU
REMIGIO M. DUQUE JR., Complainant, v.
6 The illegal dismissal case was docketed as NLRC Case No. 00-02-01195-2000/01607-
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS CHAIRMAN SIXTO S.
BRILLANTES, JR., COMMISSIONERS LUCENITO N. 2000 and entitled "UE Automotive Workers Union NFL, Alfredo B. Basi, Union President v.
TAGLE, ELIAS R. YUSOPH, AND CHRISTIAN ROBERT UE Automotive Manufacturing, Inc., and/or Mr. George Co Lim."
S. LIM; ATTYS. MA. JOSEFINA E. DELA CRUZ,
ESMERALDA A. AMORA-LADRA, MA. JUANA S. 7Rollo, pp. 197-198.
VALLEZA, SHEMIDAH G. CADIZ, AND FERNANDO F.
COT​-OM; AND PROSECUTOR NOEL S. ADION, 8 Id. at 153-177.
Respondent.

G.R. No. 212157, September 28, 2016 - PEOPLE OF 9 Id. at 178-182.

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODRIGO
RUSCO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT., Respondent. 10 Id. at 183-187.
G.R. No. 221538, September 20, 2016 - RIZALITO 11See Comment to Third-party Claim dated 20 September 2002; id. at 208-212.
Y. DAVID, Petitioner, v. SENATE ELECTORAL
TRIBUNAL AND MARY GRACE POE-LLAMANZARES,
Respondents. 12 Id.

G.R. No. 207147, September 14, 2016 - EMELITA 13 Id. at 213-217.

BASILIO GAN, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent. 14 Id. at 216.
G.R. No. 213699, September 28, 2016 - THE OFFICE
OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. P/SUPT. ROGER 15 Penned by Executive Labor Arbiter Joselito Cruz Villarosa; id. at 223-232.
JAMES BRILLANTES, PO3 PETER PAUL PABLICO, AND
PO1 NOEL FABIA, Respondents.; G.R. No. 215008 - 16Rollo, p. 231.
THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v.
POLICE SENIOR INSPECTOR2 DANTE G. YANG, 17 Compliance dated 20 January 2003; id. at 233-234.
Respondent.

G.R. No. 223852, September 14, 2016 - EDNA 18 Rule VI, Section 2 of the NLRC Manual on Execution of Judgment, states: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

ROQUE ALEGUELA, FELIPE GONZALES, DOLORES

COCHESA, LUISA CAGALINGAN, REYNALDO JUNSAY, SECTION 2. Proceedings. — If property levied upon be claimed by any
BONIFACIA RODRIQUEZ, CONEY CERDENA, AND ALL person other than the losing party or his agent, such person shall make an
PERSONS CLAIMING RIGHTS UNDER THEM, affidavit of his title thereto or right to the possession thereof, stating the
Petitioners, v. EASTERN PETROLEUM CORPORATION grounds of such right or title and shall file the same with the sheriff and
AND J&M PROPERTIES AND CONSTRUCTION copies thereof served upon the Labor Arbiter or proper officer issuing the
CORPORATION, Respondents.
writ and upon the prevailing party. Upon receipt of the third-party claim, all
G.R. No. 205721, September 14, 2016 - HARTE- proceedings with respect to the execution of the property subject of the
HANKS PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. third-party claim shall automatically be suspended and the Labor Arbiter or
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, proper officer issuing the writ shall conduct a hearing with due notice to all
Respondent. parties concerned and resolve the validity of the claim within ten (10)
working days from receipt thereof and his decision is appealable to the
G.R. No. 225141, September 26, 2016 - ENERGY Commission within ten (10) working days from notice, and the Commission
REGULATORY COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. HON. shall resolve the appeal within same period.
GREGORIO L. VEGA, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 157, PASIG CITY, However, should the prevailing party put an indemnity bond in a sum not
AND MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Respondents. less than the value of the property levied, the execution shall proceed. In
case of disagreement as to such value, the same shall be determined by the
G.R. No. 205200, September 21, 2016 - PEOPLE OF
Commission or Labor Arbiter who issued the writ.
THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. LEONARDO CRUZ Y
ROCO, Appellant. 19 Dated 27 January 2003; rollo, pp. 285-286.
G.R. No. 205871, September 28, 2016 - RUEL
TUANO Y HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE 20 Penned by Commissioner Tito F. Genilo and concurred in by Commissioner Ernesto C.
PHILIPPINES, Respondent. Verceles; Presiding Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier took no part; Id. at 355-365.

A.C. No. 11121, September 13, 2016 - DELIA LIM, 21 Id. at 359.
Complainant, v. ATTY. AQUILINO MEJICA,
Respondent. 22 Id. at 359-360.
G.R. No. 191537, September 14, 2016 - PAULINO M.
ALECHA, FELIX B. UNABIA, RICARDO A. TOLINO AND 23 Id. at 361.
MARIO A. CATANES, Petitioners, v. JOSE L. ATIENZA
JR., THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND 24 Motion for Reconsideration dated 9 June 2004; id. at 366-375.
NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR), MICHAEL L. ROMERO
AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF 168 FERRUM PACIFIC 25 Id. at 371.
MINING CORPORATION, Respondent. cralawred

G.R. No. 213418, September 21, 2016 - ALFREDO 26 Id. at 371-373.

S.RAMOS, CONCHITA S. RAMOS, BENJAMIN B.
RAMOS, NELSON T. RAMOS AND ROBINSON T. 27 Penned by Commissioner Tito F. Genilo and concurred in by Commissioner Ernesto C.
RAMOS, Petitioners, v. CHINA SOUTHERN AIRLINES
Vei Presiding Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier took no part. Id. at 385-400.
CO. LTD., Respondent.
28 Id. at 395-396.
G.R. No. 220605, September 21, 2016 - COCA-COLA
FEMSA PHILIPPINES, INC.,* Petitioner, v. BACOLOD
SALES FORCE UNION-CONGRESS OF INDEPENDENT 29 Id.
ORGANIZATION-ALU, Respondent.
30 Id. at 409-414.
G.R. No. 190187, September 28, 2016 - THE
PHILIPPINE GEOTHERMAL, INC. EMPLOYEES UNION,
31 Id. at 414-417.
Petitioner, v. UNOCAL PHILIPPINES, INC. (NOW
KNOWN AS CHEVRON GEOTHERMAL PHILIPPINES
HOLDINGS, INC.), Respondent. 32 Id. at 459-463.

G.R. No. 198350, September 14, 2016 - ATTY. 33 Resolution dated 10 July 2007; id at 442-443.
MARCOS D. RISONAR, JR., Petitioner, v. COR JESU
COLLEGE AND/OR EDGARDO S. ESCURIL,
34 Id. at 37-44
Respondents.

G.R. No. 172507, September 14, 2016 - NATIONAL 35 Id. at 40-42.

POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. SPS.
MARGARITO ASOQUE AND TARCINIA ASOQUE, 36 Id.
Respondents.
37 Id. at 43.
A.C. No. 10782, September 14, 2016 - ATTY. DELIO
M. ASERON, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOSE A. DIÑO, JR.,
Respondent. 38 Resolution dated 21 January 2008; id. at 46-47.

G.R. No. 223076, September 13, 2016 - PILAR 39Lim v. Court of Appeals, 537 Phil. 255 (2006).
CAÑEDA BRAGA, PETER TIU LAVINA, ANTONIO H.
VERGARA, BENJIE T. BADAL, DIOSDADO ANGELO A. 40Rollo, p. 468.
MAHIPUS, AND SAMAL CITY RESORT OWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC. (SCROA), Petitioners, v. HON. 41See
JOSEPH EMILIO A. ABAYA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS Resolution dated 19 January 2011, id. at 469.
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, 42See note 18.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
COMMUNICATIONS (DOTC), PRE-QUALIFICATION, 43 NLRC Revised Rules of Procedure, Rule VIII, Section 9, states:
BIDS AND AWARDS COMMITTEE (PBAC) AND
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY (PPA), Respondents.
G.R. No. 204659, September 19, 2016 - JESTER
MABUNOT, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 175651, September 14, 2016 - PILMICO-
MAURI FOODS CORP., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER
OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
G.R. No. 218891, September 19, 2016 - EDMUND
BULAUITAN Y MAUAYAN,* Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 218009, September 21, 2016 - MARVIN G.
FELIPE AND REYNANTE L. VELASCO, Petitioners, v.
DANILO DIVINA TAMAYO KONSTRACT, INC. (DDTKI)
AND/OR DANILO DIVINA TAMAYO,
PRESIDENT/OWNER, Respondent.
SECTION 9. RESOLUTION OF THIRD-PARTY CLAIM. - Should a third-party
claim be filed during execution of the judgment award, the third-party
claimant shall execute an affidavit stating his title to property or possession
thereof with supporting evidence and shall file the same with the sheriff and
copies thereof served upon the Labor Arbiter of proper officer issuing the
writ. Upon receipt of the third-party claim, all proceedings, with respect to
the execution of the property subject of the third-party claim, shall
automatically be suspended. The Labor Arbiter who issued the writ may
require the third-party claimant to adduce additional evidence in support of
his third-party claim and to post a cash or surety bond equivalent to the
amount of his claim, as provided for in Section 6, Rule VI, without prejudice
to the posting by the prevailing party of a supersedeas bond in an amount
equivalent to that posted by the third-party claimant, and resolve the
propriety of such claim within ten (10) working days from submission of the
claim for resolution.
44
Id. at 40-42.

A.C. No. 8560, September 06, 2016 - CARRIE-ANNE 45NLRC Resolution No. 02-02 (Series of 2002), Amending Certain Provisions of the NLRC
SHALEEN CARLYLE S. REYES, Complainant, v. ATTY. Manual on Execution of Judgment (Sheriff's Manual), 3 July 2002.
RAMON F. NIEVA, Respondent.
46 See Medina Investigation & Security Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 407 Phil. 273 (2001).

47 537 Phil. 255 (2006).

48 Id. at 260.

49Rollo, pp. 197-198.

50Resolution No. 02-02, Series of 2002, amending certain provisions of the NLRC Manual
on Execution of Judgment (Sheriff's Manual) was promulgated on July 3, 2002 by the
Commission en bane, Cagayan de Oro City. It took effect on 16 September 2002.

51Rollo, pp. 213-217.

52Sime Darby Employees Association v. National Labor Relations Commission, 539 Phil.
258 (2006).

53Damasco v. National Labor Relations Commission, 400 Phil. 568 (2000)

54NEECO II v. National Labor Relations Commission, 499 Phil. 777 (2005).

55Rollo, pp. 372-373.

56See Annex E of the Petition for Review; rollo, p. 196.

57SeeBacos v. Arcega, 566 Phil. 59 (2008); Also see NLRC Manual on Execution of
Judgment, Rule VI, Section 1.

Back to Home | Back to Main

QUICK SEARCH

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908

1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
 Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!

Copyright © 1998 - 20191998 - 2019 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED