03 J.K. Mercado & Sons Agricultural Enterprises, Inc. v. Sto.

Tomas AUTHOR: Castro

[G.R. No. 158084. August 29, 2008] NOTES: This case is a Petition for review on certiorari
TOPIC: Construction in favor of Labor Petitioner - J.K. Mercado & Sons Agricultural Enterprises, Inc. (J.K. Mercado & Sons)
PONENTE: Azcuna, J. Respondents – Hon. Patricia Sto. Tomas (Secretary of Labor and Employment) and
some employees of the corporation
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
A claimant has three years to press a money claim. Once judgment is rendered in her favor, she has five years to ask for execution of the judgment, counted from its finality.
This is consistent with the rule on statutory construction that a general provision should yield to a specific one and with the mandate of social justice that doubts should be
resolved in favor of labor.
FACTS:
 December 3, 1993: Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board, Region XI, issued Wage Order No. 3, granting a Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) to covered workers.
 January 28, 1994: J.K. Mercado & Sons filed an application for exemption from the coverage of the wage order.
 April 11, 1994: The application for exemption was DENIED. J.K. Mercado & Sons was ordered to pay its covered workers the allowance prescribed under the Wage Order
plus interest of one percent (1%) per month, retroactive to December 1, 1993.
 Notwithstanding the order, the respondent-employees were not given the benefits due them.
 July 10, 1998: respondent-employees filed an Urgent Motion for Writ of Execution and Writ of Garnishment for the April 11, 1994 Order, seeking the enforcement of the
wage order against several entities including J.K Mercado & Sons.
 October 7, 1998: OIC-Regional Director of Region XI issued a Writ of Execution.
 J.K Mercado & Sons filed a Motion to Quash the Writ of Execution, which was denied by the Regional Director.
 Not satisfied with the Regional Director’s decision, J.K Mercado & Sons filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals.
 The CA denied the appeal and the motion for reconsideration.
J.K. Mercado and Sons’ arguments (Note: J.K. had the same arguments from the filing of the Motion to Quash the Writ of Execution up to the filing of Certiorari with the SC):
o Art. 291 of the Labor Code applies to this case. This means that a money claim must be filed first by the employees to avail of the wage differential or COLA granted under the Wage
Order against J.K. Mercado & Sons for the latter’s refusal to pay.
o The Regional Director abused his discretion in issuing the Writ of Execution because the right of respondents to claim benefits had already prescribed due to their failure to move for the
execution of the April 11, 1994 Order within the period provided under Article 291 of the Labor Code, which is three (3) years from the finality of the order.
CA’s argument:
o Art. 291 is not applicable. While the filing by the respondents of the Urgent Motion for Writ of Execution and Writ of Garnishment refers to recovery of benefits under the subject Wage
Order, which entitled respondents to a cost of living allowance (COLA), what is being enforced in this case is the final order dated April 11, 1994 denying petitioner’s application for
exemption under the wage order.
o Being a final order, the it may be the subject of execution motu proprio or upon motion by any of the parties concerned. A judgment may be executed on motion within five (5) years
from the date of its entry or from the date it becomes final and executory.
ISSUE(S):
Whether Art. 291 of the Labor Code is applicable
HELD:
NO.
RATIO:
 Although Art. 291 of the Labor Code applies to money claims in general and provides for a 3-year prescriptive period to file them, in this case however, employees’
money claims had already been reduced to a judgment, in the form of a Wage Order, which has become final and executory. Therefore, the prescription applicable is
not the general one that applies to money claims, but the specific one applying to judgments. Thus, the right to enforce the judgment, having been exercised within
five years, has not yet prescribed.
 A claimant has three years to press a money claim. Once judgment is rendered in her favor, she has five years to ask for execution of the judgment, counted from
its finality. This is consistent with the rule on statutory construction that a general provision should yield to a specific one and with the mandate of social justice
that doubts should be resolved in favor of labor.