V.L. Enterprises vs.

Court of Appeals

Case

G.R. No. 167512

Ponente

CHICO-NAZARIO, J

Decision Date

Mar 12, 2007

V.L. Enterprises' petition for annulment of judgment, writ of execution, and notice of sale on execution is dismissed by the
Supreme Court due to their failure to file a timely appeal and the Court of Appeals' judgment becoming final and
executory, while affirming the jurisdiction of the DOLE Secretary over cases involving employee's money claims.

Facts:

 V.L. Enterprises filed a petition for annulment of judgment, writ of execution, and notice of sale on execution.

 The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) conducted an inspection of V.L. Enterprises on March 10, 1998.

 On May 5, 1999, the Regional Director of DOLE issued an order directing V.L. Enterprises to pay Camilo Francisco
and twenty-two other workers the total amount of P822,978.00 within ten days.

 V.L. Enterprises appealed this order.

 On June 23, 1999, the DOLE Undersecretary directed V.L. Enterprises to post a cash or surety bond equivalent to
the monetary award, or else the appeal would be dismissed.

 V.L. Enterprises filed an urgent motion for reconsideration, stating that they had already posted a supersedeas
bond in a similar case pending with the National Labor Relations Commission.

 On February 14, 2000, the Undersecretary denied V.L. Enterprises' motion for reconsideration and gave them ten
days to post the required bond.

 On July 31, 2002, the DOLE Secretary affirmed the order and deemed it final and executory.

 On August 11, 2004, an Alias Writ of Execution was issued, directing V.L. Enterprises to pay Camilo Francisco and
other employees the sum of P422,978.00.

 Based on this writ, Sheriff Willy Gabito issued a Notice of Sale on Execution of Real Properties on October 11,
2004.

 V.L. Enterprises filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, seeking the nullification of the DOLE order,
the Alias Writ of Execution, and the Notice of Sale on Execution.

 The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack of merit, and V.L. Enterprises filed a motion for
reconsideration, which was also denied.

 Instead of filing a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, V.L. Enterprises filed a petition for
annulment of judgment, writ of execution, and notice of sale on execution.

Issue:

 Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the petition for annulment of judgment, writ of execution, and
notice of sale on execution filed by V.L. Enterprises.

Ruling:
  The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for annulment of judgment, writ of execution, and notice of sale on
execution filed by V.L. Enterprises.

Ratio:

 The Supreme Court held that an action for annulment of judgment cannot be a substitute for the lost remedy of
appeal.

 The court noted that the petitioners failed to file a timely appeal and that the Court of Appeals' judgment had
become final and executory.

 The court cited a previous ruling that the DOLE Secretary has jurisdiction over cases involving employee's money
claims arising from employer-employee relations, regardless of the monetary value involved.

 Therefore, even if the court were to decide the case on its merits, the petition would still fail.

 In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for annulment of judgment, writ of execution, and notice
of sale on execution filed by V.L. Enterprises. The court ruled that the petitioners failed to file a timely appeal and
that the Court of Appeals' judgment had become final and executory. Additionally, the court held that the DOLE
Secretary has jurisdiction over cases involving employee's money claims, regardless of the monetary value
involved.

SUMMARY

Background of the Case

 The case involves a Petition for Annulment of Judgment, Writ of Execution, and Notice of Sale on Execution.

 The petitioners are V.L. Enterprises and/or Faustino J. Visitacion.

 The respondents are the Hon. Court of Appeals, Sheriff Willy Gabito, Regional Director of the National Capital
Region, Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), and Camilo Francisco.

 The case pertains to several orders and issuances, including resolutions from the Court of Appeals, an order from
the DOLE Regional Director, an alias writ of execution from the DOLE Acting Regional Director, and a notice of sale
on execution from Sheriff Willy Gabito.

Facts of the Case

 On March 10, 1998, the DOLE conducted an inspection of V.L. Enterprises.

 On May 5, 1999, the DOLE Regional Director issued an order directing V.L. Enterprises to pay Camilo Francisco and
22 other workers a total amount of P822,978.00 within 10 days.

 Petitioners appealed the order.

 On June 23, 1999, the DOLE Undersecretary ordered petitioners to post a cash or surety bond equivalent to the
monetary award.

 Petitioners filed an urgent motion for reconsideration, stating that they had already posted a supersedeas bond in
a similar case pending with the NLRC.

 On February 14, 2000, the Undersecretary denied the motion and gave petitioners 10 days to post the requisite
bond.

 On July 31, 2002, the DOLE Secretary affirmed the February 14, 2000 order and deemed it final and executory.

 On August 11, 2004, an alias writ of execution was issued, directing petitioners to pay Camilo Francisco and other
employees P422,978.00.
  On October 11, 2004, a notice of sale on execution of real properties was issued.

Petition and Court of Appeals Decision

 Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, seeking the nullification of the May 5, 1999
DOLE order, the August 11, 2004 alias writ of execution, and the October 11, 2004 notice of sale on execution.

 On November 9, 2004, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack of merit.

 Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was also denied by the Court of Appeals.

 Petitioners received a copy of the denial on February 3, 2005.

 Instead of filing a petition for review on certiorari, petitioners filed a petition for annulment of judgment, writ of
execution, and notice of sale on execution on April 11, 2005.

Court's Decision

 The court held that the petition for annulment of judgment cannot prosper because petitioners did not file a
petition for review on certiorari within the reglementary period.

 The court also denied the prayer for annulment of the other issuances due to the final and executory judgment of
the Court of Appeals.

 The court further stated that even if the petition was decided on its merits, it would still fail.

 Petitioners' ground for annulment was the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the DOLE Regional Director in awarding
amounts exceeding P5,000.00.

 However, the court cited Republic Act No. 7730, which amended Article 128 (b) of the Labor Code, granting the
DOLE authority to issue compliance orders regardless of the monetary value involved.

 The court dismissed the petition and ordered costs against the petitioners.