312 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

DArmouredSecurityandInvestigationAgency,Inc.vs.Orpia
*
G.R.No.151325.June27,2005.

D ARMOURED SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION AGENCY,

INC., petitioner, vs. ARNULFO ORPIA, LODUVICO ABUCEJO,
ROWEL AGURO, EFREN ALMOETE, ROMEO AMISTA,
WARLITO BALAGOSA, ROMEO BALINGBING, RAMON
BARROA,MONTECLAROBATAWIL,ARNELBON,RICARDO
CAPENTES, DANILO DADA, JOEL DELA CRUZ, HERNANO
DELOS REYES, FLORENTINO DELOS TRINO, ROGELIO
DUERME, NONITO ESTRELLADO, JOSEPH FALCESO,
ISIDRO FLORES, VICTOR GUNGON, SONNY JULBA,
PATRICIO LACANA, JR., FELIX LASCONA, JUANITO LUNA,
RAUL LUZADAS, ROMMEL MAGBANUA, ROGELIO
MARIBUNG, NICOLAS MENDOZA, EZVENER OGANA,
RICKYORANO,REYNALDOOZARAGA,SAMUELPADILLA,
EDWIN PARRENO, IRENEO PARTOLAN, JUAN PIGTUAN,
GUILLERMOPUSING,RODELSIBAL,SILVESTRESOLEDAD,
JOVENAR TEVER, VIRGILIO TIMAJO, ERMILIO
TOMARONG, JR., VIRGILIO VERDEFLOR and JOEREX
VICTORINO,respondents.

Actions Judgments Appeals An order or execution of a final and

executory judgment is not appealable, otherwise, there would be no end to
litigation.The petition lacks merit. We have ruled that an order of
execution of a final and executory judgment, as in this case, is not
appealable, otherwise, there would be no end to litigation. On this ground
alone,theinstantpetitionisdismissible.
Same Same Writs of Execution It is apparent that the rule on
propertiesexemptfromexecutionpertainsonlytonaturalpersonsandnotto
juridicalentities.Assumingthatanappealisproper,stillwehavetodeny
the instant petition. Section 1, Rule IV of the NLRC Manual on Execution
ofJudgmentprovides:xxxTheRuleclearlyenumerateswhatpropertiesare
exempt from execution. It is apparent that the exemption pertains only to
naturalpersonsandnotto

_______________
 *THIRDDIVISION.

313

VOL.461,JUNE27,2005 313

DArmouredSecurityandInvestigationAgency,Inc.vs.Orpia

juridical entities. On this point, the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that
petitioner,beingacorporateentity,doesnotfallwithintheexemption.

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourtof
Appeals.

ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
SocratesM.Arevaloforpetitioner.
JoseB.Caponesforprivaterespondents.

SANDOVALGUTIERREZ,J.:

ForresolutionisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45of
the 19971
Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing the
Decision dated December 18, 2001 rendered by the Court of
AppealsinCAG.R. SP No. 61799,entitledDArmoured Security
and Investigation Agency, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations
Commission,ArbiterArielC.Santos,NLRCSheriffRicardoPerona,
Arnulfo Orpia, Ludovico Abucejo, Rowel Aguro, Efren Almoete,
RomeoAmista,WarlitoBalgosa,RomeoBalingbing,RamonBarroa,
Monteclaro Batawil, Arnel Bon, Ricardo Capentes, Danilo Dada,
Joel dela Cruz, Hernando delos Reyes, Florentino delos Trino,
Rogelio Duerme, Nonito Estrellado, Joseph Falceso, Isidro Flores,
Victor Gungon, Sonny Julba, Patricio Lacana, Jr., Felix Lascona,
Juanito Luna, Raul Lozadas, Rommel Magbanua, Rogelio
Maribung, Nicolas Mendoza, Ezvener Ogana, Ricky Orano,
Reynaldo Ozaraga, Samuel Padilla, Edwin Parreno, Ireneo
Partolan, Juan Pigtuan, Guillermo Pusing, Rodel Sibal, Silvestre
Soledad, Jovener Tever, Virgilio Timajo, Emilio Tomarong, Jr.,
VirgilioVerdeflorandJoerexVictorino.

_______________

1PennedbyJusticeOswaldoD.Agcaoili(retired)andconcurredinbyJusticeJose

L.Sabio,Jr.andJusticeMarianoC.DelCastillo,AnnexIofthePetition,Rolloat
pp.149157.

314
314 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
DArmouredSecurityandInvestigationAgency,Inc.vs.Orpia

On February 9, 1995, the abovenamed respondents, who were

employed as security guards by DArmoured Security and
Investigation Agency, Inc., petitioner, and assigned to Fortune
Tobacco, Inc. (Fortune Tobacco), filed with the Labor Arbiter a
complaintforillegaldismissalandvariousmonetaryclaimsagainst
petitionerandFortuneTobacco,docketedasNLRCNCRCaseNo.
00020114895.
On June 11, 1998, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision, the
dispositiveportionofwhichreads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, all the respondents except Antonio

CabangonChuaarejointlyandseverallyliabletopaycomplainantsthetotal
sum of ONE MILLION SEVENTY SEVEN THOUSAND ONE
HUNDRED TWENTY FOUR AND TWENTY NINE CENTAVOS
(P1,077,124.29) for underpayment, overtime pay, legal holiday pay, service
incentiveleavepay,13thmonthpay,illegaldeductionandrefundoffirearms
bond,asindicatedinAnnexA.
Finally, ten (10%) percent of all sums owing to complainants is hereby
awardedasattorneysfees.
SOORDERED.

FromthesaidDecision,FortuneTobaccointerposedanappealtothe
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Petitioner did not
appeal. On March 26, 1999, the NLRC rendered its Decision
affirming with modification the assailed Arbiters Decision in the
sense that the complaint against Fortune Tobacco was dismissed.
ThisDecisionbecamefinalandexecutory.Thus,theawardspecified
intheDecisionoftheArbiterbecamethesoleliabilityofpetitioner.
TherecordswerethenremandedtotheArbiterforexecution.
Uponrespondentsmotion,theArbiterissuedawritofexecution.
Eventually,thesheriffservedawritofgarnishmentupontheChief
Accountant of Foremost Farms, Inc., a corporation with whom
petitioner has an existing services agreement. Thus, petitioners
receivableswithForemostweregarnished.

315

VOL.461,JUNE27,2005 315
DArmouredSecurityandInvestigationAgency,Inc.vs.Orpia

Petitioner filed with the NLRC a Motion to Quash/Recall Writ of

ExecutionandGarnishmentwhichwasopposedbyrespondents.
On March 10, 2000, the Arbiter issued an Order denying the
motion and directing the sheriff to release the garnished sum of
moneytorespondentsprorata.
 Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied, hence, it
interposedanappealtotheNLRC.
In a Resolution dated July 27, 2000, the NLRC dismissed the
appealforpetitionersfailuretopostabondwithinthereglementary
period. Its motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution
datedSeptember25,2000.
Forthwith, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition
forcertiorari and prohibition with prayer for issuance of a writ of
preliminaryinjunction.
In a Decision dated December 18, 2001, the Court of Appeals
dismissedthepetition.
Hence,thispetitionforreviewoncertiorari.
Inthispetition,theissueposediswhethertheCourtofAppeals
erred in holding that petitioners monthly receivables from the
ForemostFarms,Inc.(garnishee)arenotexemptfromexecution.
Thepetitionlacksmerit.Wehaveruledthatanorderofexecution
ofafinalandexecutoryjudgment,asinthiscase,isnotappealable,
2
otherwise,therewouldbenoendtolitigation. Onthisgroundalone,
theinstantpetitionisdismissible.
Assuming that an appeal is proper, still we have to deny the
instant petition. Section 1, Rule IV of the NLRC Manual on
ExecutionofJudgmentprovides:

_______________

2 See Baluyot vs. Guiao, G.R. No. 136294, September 28, 1999, 315 SCRA 396,

cited in King Integrated Security Services, Inc. vs. Gatan,G.R. No. 143813, July 7,
2003,405SCRA376,378.

316

316 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
DArmouredSecurityandInvestigationAgency,Inc.vs.Orpia

RuleIV

EXECUTION

SECTION1.Propertiesexemptfromexecution.Onlythepropertiesofthe
losingpartyshallbethesubjectofexecution,except:

(a) The losing partys family home constituted in accordance with the
CivilCodeorFamilyCodeorasmaybeprovidedforbylaworin
the absence thereof, the homestead in which he resides, and land
necessarilyusedinconnectiontherewith,subjecttothelimitsfixed
bylaw
(b) Hisnecessaryclothing,andthatofhisfamily
 (c) Household furniture and utensils necessary for housekeeping, and
usedforthatpurposebythelosingpartysuchashemayselect,ofa
valuenotexceedingtheamountfixedbylaw
(d) Provisions for individual or family use sufficient for three (3)
months
(e) The professional libraries of attorneys, judges, physicians,
pharmacists, dentists, engineers, surveyors, clergymen, teachers,
andotherprofessionals,notexceedingtheamountfixedbylaw
(f) So much of the earnings of the losing party for his personal
services within the month preceding the levy as are necessary for
thesupportofhisfamily
(g) All monies, benefits, privileges, or annuities accruing or in any
mannergrowingoutofanylifeinsurance
(h) Tools and instruments necessarily used by him in his trade or
employment of a value not exceeding three thousand (P3,000.00)
pesos
(i) Otherpropertiesespeciallyexemptedbylaw.

TheaboveRuleclearlyenumerateswhatpropertiesareexemptfrom
execution.Itisapparentthattheexemptionpertainsonlytonatural
persons and not to juridical entities. On this point, the Court of
Appealscorrectlyruledthatpetitioner,beingacorporateentity,does
notfallwithintheexemption,thus:
317

VOL.461,JUNE27,2005 317
DArmouredSecurityandInvestigationAgency,Inc.vs.Orpia

We cannot accede to petitioners position that the garnished amount is

exemptfromexecution.
Section 13 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court is plain and clear on what
propertiesareexemptfromexecution.Section13(i)oftheRulespertinently
reads:

SECTION 13. Property exempt from execution.Except as otherwise expressly

providedbylaw,thefollowingproperty,andnoother,shallbeexemptfromexecution:
xxxxxxxxx
(i)Somuchofthesalaries,wagesorearningsofthejudgmentobligorforhis
personalserviceswithinthefourmonthsprecedingthelevyasarenecessaryforthe
supportofhisfamily.

The exemption under this procedural rule should be read in conjunction

with the Civil Code, the substantive law which proscribes the execution of
employeeswages,thus:

ART. 1708. The laborers wage shall not be subject to execution or attachment,
exceptfordebtsincurredforfood,shelter,clothingandmedicalattendance.
 Obviously, the exemption under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and
Article1708oftheNewCivilCodeismeanttofavoronlylaboringmenor
women whose works are manual. Persons belonging to this class usually
look to the reward of a days labor for immediate or present support, and
such persons are more in need of the exemption than any other [Gaa vs.
CourtofAppeals,140SCRA304(1985)].
In this context, exemptions under this rule are confined only to natural
persons and not to juridical entities such as petitioner. Thus, the rule
speaksofsalaries,wagesandearningfromthepersonalservicesrendered
by the judgment obligor. The rule further requires that such earnings be
intendedforthesupportofthejudgmentdebtorsfamily.
Necessarily,petitionerwhichisacorporateentity,doesnotfallunderthe
exemption. If at all, the exemption refers to petitioners individual
employeesandnottopetitionerasacorporation.
xxx.Parenthetically,inaparallelcasewhereasecurityagencyclaimed
that the guns it gives to its guards are tools and implements exempt from
execution,theSupremeCourthadthe

318

318 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
DArmouredSecurityandInvestigationAgency,Inc.vs.Orpia

occasion to rule that the exemption pertains only to natural and not to
juridicalpersons,thus:

However,itwouldappearthattheexemptioncontemplatedbytheprovisioninvolved
is personal, available only to a natural person, such as a dentists dental chair and
electricfan(Belenv.deLeon,G.R.No.L15612,30Nov.1962).Aspointedoutbythe
SolicitorGeneral,ifpropertiesusedinbusinessareexemptfromexecution,therecan
hardly be an instance when a judgment claim can be enforced against the business
entity [Pentagon Security and Investigation Agency vs. Jimenez, 192 SCRA 492
(1990)].

It stands to reason that only natural persons whose salaries, wages and
earnings are indispensable for his own and that of his familys support are
exemptedunderSection13(i)ofRule39oftheRulesofCourt.Undeniably,
a corporate entity such as petitioner security agency is not covered by the
exemption.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisherebyDISMISSED.
SOORDERED.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision

dated December 18, 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP
No.61799isAFFIRMEDINTOTO.Costsagainstpetitioner.
SOORDERED.

Panganiban (Chairman), Corona, CarpioMorales and

Garcia,JJ.,concur.
 Petitiondenied,assaileddecisionaffirmedintoto.

Notes.Awritofdemolitionmaybeconsideredtoconstitutea
writ of execution where the former substantially complies with the
formandcontentsofthelatterasprovidedforunderSection8,Rule
39oftheRulesofCourt.(Rubiovs.MunicipalTrialCourtinCities,
Branch4,CagayandeOroCity,252SCRA172[1996])

319

VOL.461,JUNE27,2005 319
HolyCrossofDavaoCollege,Inc.vs.HolyCrossofDavaoFaculty
UnionKAMAPI

AClerkofCourtusurpsajudicialfunctionifsheamendsawritof
executiononherowninitiative.(Wabevs.Bionson,418SCRA479
[2003])

o0o

Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.