Anda di halaman 1dari 2

IN THE MATTER OF ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT AGAINST HON. ABESAMIS, et al.

Facts: This is an administrative complaint filed by employees of Year Jan Industries against CA 12th Division Justices. A labor dispute arose between employees of Year Jan Industries and their employer, Year Jan Industries, Phil., Inc. for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioners-employees, declaring their dismissal illegal and ordering them to be reinstated to their former position without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, and with backwages, 13th month pay and sick and vacation leave. NLRC affirmed. The Company assailed the NLRC decision before the Court of Appeals. The case was raffled to the Special Twelfth Division, composed of Judge Abesamis, Labitoria, and Asuncion. An alias writ of execution was issued against the Company to collect for the computed backwages, 13th month pay and sick and vacation leave pay of the petitioners. A notice of garnishment was issued against the Companys account in the RCBC. Year Jan then filed a Very Urgent Motion for Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and a Writ of Preliminary Injunction to enjoin the implementation of the writ of execution and the order of garnishment, and if the same has already been implemented, to restrain RCBC from transferring the garnished amount to the NLRC Sheriff, or if the garnished amount has already been transferred, to enjoin the NLRC from releasing the same to the petitioners. Respondent Judges issued a temporary restraining order. On February 29, 2000, the Companys application for preliminary injunction was granted upon the filing of a bond in the amount of P5,437,992.02. The

Company, however, failed to post the bond required. On October 6, 2000, the Company filed another Urgent Motion for Issuance of TRO and/or Preliminary Injunction, this time, to enjoin the Labor Arbiter from implementing the alias writ of execution for the collection of P8,401,103.36 representing additional backwages/salaries of the petitioners. This was granted by respondents. Aggrieved by issuance of the said Resolution, petitioners moved to inhibit the respondents but was denied on January 30, 2000. Contention of the parties: Petitioners assert that the issuance of the TRO without requiring the posting of the required surety bond and without defining the period of its effectivity or duration transgresses Sections 5 and 7 of Rule 58 of the Rules of Court and the Canon of Judicial Ethics. Respondents, upon the other hand maintain, (1) xxx (2) that under Sec. 4, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, the bond is posted only when required by court; (3)xxx (4)xxx Issue: Whether or not the failure of the respondent judges to require Year Jan Industries to post a bond violated Rule 58 of the Rules of Court. NO! Held: The complaint should be dismissed. The respondents, in issuing the assailed Resolution, acted within the confines and limits of the law and their authority. I. Petitioners, in their motion for writ of execution, moved only for the execution of the money judgment. In the restraining orders issued by respondents, what was restrained and enjoined is the payment of

the monetary claims adjudged by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC and not the reinstatement of the petitioners to their former positions. Thus, with or without the restraining orders, the judgment of the NLRC reinstating the petitioners is immediately executory pursuant to Article 223 of the Labor Code. II. The failure of the respondents to require the Company to post a bond did not violate the Rules of Court. Paragraph (b) of Section 4, Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, gives the court discretion to require such bond. The court may, in proper cases, exempt the applicant from filing the bond normally required. In issuing the October 11, 2000 Resolution, respondents were merely exercising a discretion granted them by law. Certainly, we find no abuse of discretion, much less a grave or patent abuse of judgment when they issued the assailed Order. It must be stressed however, that respondents in their Resolution dated February 29, 2000, required the Company to post a bond for the issuance of the preliminary injunction. Unfortunately, the Company failed to comply, hence, the writ was never issued. Petition denied.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai