Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
National Capital Region-North Sector
Quezon City

ARLYN PRADO AQUINO and

ALEXAN BRENT BANELA,
Complainants,

NLRC NCR Case No. NCR- 10-14859-17

NLRC LAC No. 10-003673-18

- versus -

GAIL ALEXA FOOD CONCEPT/

RICHARD SY,
Respondents.

x-----------------------------x

COMMENTS/OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF

WRIT OF EXECUTION

RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS, GAIL ALEXA FOOD CONCEPT/

RICHARD SY, by counsel and unto this Honorable Commission, most
respectfully aver that:

1.) A motion for issuance of writ execution was filed by

Complainants in the above-entitled case.

2.) The motion is being opposed on the ground of

pendency of the Petition for Special Civil for Certiorari
under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
before the Court of Appeals docketed under CA-G.R.
SP. No. 161006 seeking the reversal and/or
nullification of the Decision promulgated on December
18, 2018 and Resolution promulgated on March 11,
2019.
3.) In order not to pre-empt the ruling of the Honorable
Court of Appeals in our Petition, and in line with the
rule on judicial courtesy, we respectfully move and
pray that the issuance of writ of execution in this case
be denied until such time that the Court of Appeals
resolve the said Petition.

4.) In the recent case of Trajano v. Uniwide Sales

Warehouse Club, G.R. No. 190253, 11 June
2014 this Court gave a brief discourse on judicial
courtesy, which concept was first introduced in Eternal
Gardens Memorial Park Corp. v. Court of Appeals , to
wit:

xxx xxx xxx.

xxx [t]he principle of judicial courtesy to

justify the suspension of the
proceedings before the lower court
even without an injunctive writ or
order from the higher court. In that
case, we pronounced that “[d]ue
respect for the Supreme Court and
practical and ethical considerations
should have prompted the appellate
court to wait for the final
determination of the petition [for
certiorari] before taking cognizance
of the case and trying to render moot
exactly what was before this
[C]ourt.” We subsequently reiterated
the concept of judicial courtesy in
Joy Mart Consolidated Corp. v. Court
of Appeals.

We, however, have qualified and

limited the application of judicial
courtesy in Go v. Abrogar and
Republic v. Sandiganbayan. In these
cases, we expressly delimited the
application of judicial courtesy to
maintain the efficacy of Section 7,
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and
held that the principle of judicial

2
 courtesy applies only “if there is a
strong probability that the issues
before the higher court would be
rendered moot and moribund as
a result of the continuation of
the proceedings in the lower
court.” Through these cases, we
clarified that the principle of judicial
courtesy remains to be the exception
rather than the rule.

xxx xxx xxx.

5.) In the present case, to proceed with the present

Motion would render moot and academic and even
meaningless the Petition pending before the Court of
Appeals.

6.) Hence, in view of the foregoing, the Respondent

most respectfully prays of this Honorable
Commission to deny the Complainant’s Motion
Issuance of Writ of Execution.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable

Commission to DENY the Complainant’s Motion for Issuance of Writ of
Execution.

Respondents pray for such other reliefs as may be just and

equitable in the premises.

18 July 2019 at Caloocan City, Metro Manila.

MARC TERRY C. PEREZ

Counsel for the Respondent-Appellant
No. 47 A1 William Shaw Residences,
William Shaw St. corner Urbano Plata St., Grace Park, Caloocan City
Telephone Number: (02) 361-9033/Mobile Number: 0917-7770603
IBP No. 059191/07 January 2019/Pasig City
PTR No. SJ 1248399/07 January 2019/San Juan City
MCLE Compliance No. V-0022876 dated 8 July 2016
Admitted to the Bar May 3, 2007
Roll of Attorney No. 54295/May 3, 2007

3
Copy Furnished:

ATTY. Martin Inigo C. Cruz

Counsel for Complainants
DOJ – PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
Manila District Office
4th Floor W. Godino Building,
350 Arroceros St., Ermita, Manila

EXPLANATION

Service of this pleading upon the adverse party is by registered mail instead
of personal service because the office of the undersigned counsel and office of the
adverse party are distantly located and because of lack or inadequate
messengerial aide to effect personal service. (If personal service is resorted to
kindly disregard this explanation)

M.C.P.