Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila
EIGHTH (8th) DIVISION
***
HIDDEN SANCTUARY CA-G.R. SP No. 162327
RESOURCES AND REALTY
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, AS
REPRESENTED BY
WILFREDO Z. NARNOLA,
AND IN HIS PERSONAL
CAPACITY, AND WENDELL
JULIUS DJ NARNOLA,
Petitioners,
Members:

GONZALES-SISON, M. B.,
-versus- Chairperson
PEREZ, P. A., and
LAUIGAN, R.R. R., JJ.:
HON. ISRAEL G.
PANGANIBAN-
ORTIGUERRA, JOSEPH
GERARD E. MABILOG AND
AGNES ALEXIS A. LUCERO-
DE GRANO, IN THEIR
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
COMMISSIONERS OF
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION
(6TH DIVISION), HON.
ROMMEL R. VELUZ, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
LABOR ARBITER, AND
REGINA CHRISTINE
BASILIO LUCAS,
Respondents. Promulgated:

January 29, 2021

Hidden Sanctuary, et al. vs. Hon. Panganiban-Ortiguerra, et al. Decision
CA-GR SP No. 162327 Page 2 of 10

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
GONZALES-SISON, M.,J:

Before this Court is a verified Petition for Certiorari 1 from the

Decisions in NLRC LER Case 03-078-19 2 of the National Labor
Relations Commission, Sixth (6th) Division, Quezon City and NLRC
NCR Case 05-07820-183 of the Labor Arbiter, filed by herein
petitioners, Hidden Sanctuary Resources and Realty Development
Corporation, as represented by Wilfredo Z. Narnola and in his
personal capacity, Wendell Julius DJ Narnola, challenging the
NLRC's denial of herein petitioner's Petition for Extraordinary
Remedies and challenging the regularity of the Labor Arbiter's Writ
of Execution4, under the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure.

FACTS

Private respondent, Regina Christine Basilio Lucas, was

previously hired by petitioner, Hidden Sanctuary Resources and
Realty Development Corporation, sometime in 2010. Lucas started
out as an administrative supervisor for the said hotel. Over time, she
rose to being its operations supervisor and, finally, as operations
manager.5

In the summer of 2017, an incident happened between Lucas

and Hidden Sanctuary Chairman, Wilfredo Narnola. Since then, their
professional relationship has been riddled with tension. Unable to
bear the tension and maltreatment, Lucas tendered her resignation on
June 2017. As the resignation was not accepted by Wendell Narnola,
Lucas continued her employment with the hotel.6

On August 2017, Lucas embarked on an official business travel

to represent the hotel in New Jersey, United States of America. The

1
Rollo, p. 3
2
Rollo, p. 29
3
Rollo, p. 120
4
Rollo, p. 35
5
Rollo, p. 121
6
Rollo, p. 121
Hidden Sanctuary, et al. vs. Hon. Panganiban-Ortiguerra, et al. Decision
CA-GR SP No. 162327 Page 3 of 10

official business travel was for a three (3) -day marketing activity
called “Fiesta in America”. What could have been a brief business
travel for Lucas got extended to three (3) more months.7

On November 2017, Lucas was able to fly back to Manila. Three

days upon arrival, she reported back to work.8

Suspiscious that Wendell Narnola only extended her business

trip to cheat on her with another co-worker, Lucas confronted the
former which led to a fight. Thereafter, without notice, Lucas was
placed on forced leave of absence for two (2) weeks. By the end of her
forced leave, she was told to clear up her workspace of her personal
belongings. Since then, Lucas had not received any notice regarding
her employment with Hidden Sanctuary.9

Acting on the belief that she was illegally, constructively

dismissed, Lucas filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against
Hidden Sanctuary before the Labor Arbiter.10

The Labor Arbiter then ruled in favor of Lucas, considering the

latter to have been constructively dismissed, hence, entitled to the
respective payment of her salary, service incentive leave, separation
pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees, the
dispositive portion of the decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the

respondents to pay the complainant the following:

1. P493,230.00 as her backwages;

2. P288,000.00 as her separation pay;
3. P20,000.00 as moral damages;
4. P20,000.00 as exemplary damages;
5. P82,123.00 as attorney's fees.

All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.”11

7
Rollo, p. 122
8
Rollo, p. 122
9
Rollo, p. 123
10
Rollo, p. 123
11
Rollo, p. 125
Hidden Sanctuary, et al. vs. Hon. Panganiban-Ortiguerra, et al. Decision
CA-GR SP No. 162327 Page 4 of 10

Aggrieved, herein petitioners brought their case before the

National Labor Relations Commission, Sixth (6th) Division via a
Petition for Extraordinary Remedies. The latter utterly denied the
petition for lack of merit as the NLRC opined that said petition could
not be in lieu of lost appeal, thus, the decision of the Labor Arbiter
stands as it remains binding.12

Hence this Petition for Certiorari by petitioners, alleging that in

their case, there is no appeal nor other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law to be availed of, in order to seek
the nullification of the Labor Arbiter's decision, dated 28 November
2018.13

Version of petitioners

As per Hidden Sanctuary's petition14, the National Labor

Relations Commission, Sixth (6th) Division, committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction for denying
their Petition for Extraordinary Remedies. The NLRC erred as it
focused purely on technicalities of procedure rather than the actual
merits of their petition.

Simply, Lucas volunarily resigned, as evidenced by the

resignation letter she tendered, dated 20 June 2017. However, the
management only accepted her resignation on 25 November 2017.
Despite the belated acceptance of her resignation, the fact remains
that Lucas' resignation was voluntary. Hence, Lucas' cessation from
her employment was not due to constructive dismissal but her own
doing. Although quite belatedly, petitioners merely accepted Lucas'
voluntary resignation.

Anent the Labor Arbiter, he gravely abused his discretion by

directly issuing a Writ of Execution without first issuing an order
approving or granting the motion for the issuance of the said Writ of
Execution. This procedural defect grossly violates petitioners' right to
due process and robs them of their opportunity to take subsequent

12
Rollo, p. 33
13
Rollo, p. 15
14
Rollo, p. 3
Hidden Sanctuary, et al. vs. Hon. Panganiban-Ortiguerra, et al. Decision
CA-GR SP No. 162327 Page 5 of 10

legal action. Further adding to the irregularity was the lack of pre-
execution conference, as provided by the 2011 NLRC Rules of
Procedure.

The procedural misstep prompted petitioners into moving for

the quashal of the irregular and improvidently issued writ. Another
grave abuse of discretion by the Labor Arbiter was his denial of
petitioners' motion to quash the irregular, improvidently issued Writ
of Execution, despite legal grounds.

Version of the private respondent

As per private respondent's Comment15, petitioners' Petition for

Certiorari utterly lacks merit and is solely intended to cause delay in
the implementation of the Writ of Execution to enforce the Labor
Arbiter's judgment, dated 28 November 2018.

ISSUES

Petitioners assign the following issues for resolution:

I.

THE PUBLIC RESPONDENTS (NLRC 6th

DIVISION) COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE
OF DISCRETION IN DENYING THE
PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY
REMEDIES FOR LACK OF MERIT.16

II.

THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT (HON. VELUZ)

COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION IN CAUSING THE ISSUANCE
OF THE WRIT OF EXECUTION AND
DENYING THE MOTION TO QUASH.17

15
Rollo, p. 182
16
Rollo, p. 15
17
Rollo, p. 21
Hidden Sanctuary, et al. vs. Hon. Panganiban-Ortiguerra, et al. Decision
CA-GR SP No. 162327 Page 6 of 10

COURT'S RULING

The petition utterly lacks merit.

Rather than the substance of the case, the very core of this
petition is truly centered on the technicalities thereof, under the 2011
NLRC Rules of Procedure.

First, petitioners enjoin the National Labor Relations

Commission, Sixth (6th) Division, for utterly denying their Petition for
Extraordinary Remedies before the latter under said rules, viz:

“RULE XII – Extraordinary Remedies

xxx

Section 2. Grounds. - The petition filed under this Rule may be entertained
only if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law, and based on any of the following grounds:

(a) If there is prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion on the part of the
Labor Arbiter;

(b) If serious errors in the findings of facts are raised which, if not
corrected, would cause grave or irreparable damage or injury to the
petitioner;

(c) If a party by fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence has been

prevented from taking an appeal;

(d) If made purely on questions of law; or,

(e) If the order or resolution will cause injustice if not rectified.”18

From the abovequoted provision, it is explicit that an

extraordinary remedy is available only in exceptional cases, subject to
the sound discretion of the National Labor Relations Commissioner.
An extraordinary remedy may be granted if and when the NLRC is
satisfied that the specific circumstances concur in a case – (1) only
when the cards of appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate

18
Emphases supplied
Hidden Sanctuary, et al. vs. Hon. Panganiban-Ortiguerra, et al. Decision
CA-GR SP No. 162327 Page 7 of 10

remedy in the ordinary course of law are not on the table, coupled
with (2) any of the five (5) grounds cited above.

To reiterate, the basic requisite of an extraordinary remedy is

that there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law.19 Where appeal is / could have been
available, extraordinary remedy cannot and does not lie. 20 Hence, the
NLRC is correct in ruling that said remedy is strictly not a substitute
for lost or lapsed appeal, as they are mutually exclusive of one
another.21 Further, the NLRC correctly opined that the failure of
petitioners to perfect an appeal in due time, through their own
negligence or through the error in their choice of procedural steps,
cannot be remedied by the filing for an extraordinary remedy.

In this petition before Us, instead of establishing the

circumstances showing their entitlement to an extraordinary remedy,
as metioned by the abovecited provision, and ultimately proving
their allegation of grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC, instead of
proving alleged jurisdictional errors committed by the NLRC, the
Petition for Certiorari, as if it were an ordinary appeal, was a mere
rehash of their own factual issues and arguments, which were
already well-settled by the Labor Arbiter.

As to the alleged procedural misstep by the Labor Arbiter, We

turn to Section 1 of Rule 11 of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, viz:

“Rule 11- Execution Proceedings

Section 1. Execution upon finality of decision or order. -

(a) A writ of execution may be issued motu proprio or on motion, upon a

decision or order that has become final and executory.”22

From the foregoing, it is explicit that when a decision or order

becomes final and executory, a writ of execution may be issued either
motu proprio or through motion by the prevailing party.

19
Republic of the Philippines vs. Yang Chi Hao GR 165332 dated 2 October 2009
20
Tolentino vs. People GR 170396 dated 31 August 2006
21
Villamar-Sandoval vs. Cailipan GR 200727 dated 4 March 2013
22
Emphases supplied
Hidden Sanctuary, et al. vs. Hon. Panganiban-Ortiguerra, et al. Decision
CA-GR SP No. 162327 Page 8 of 10

As held in a long line of cases23, when a decision becomes final

and executory, execution thereof becomes a matter of right as to the
prevailing party (herein private respondent).

Moreover, the fact that the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure

especially allows for a motu proprio issuance thereof further bolsters
the prevailing party's said right, that its issuance cannot be
questioned nor contested anymore. In effect, a prevailing party's
right cannot be subjected to the right to due process of the opposing
party (herein petitioners).

In fact, even if the execution proceedings of a final and

executory judgment cannot be subjected to an opposing party's right
to due process, the Labor Arbiter in this case still amply accorded the
former the same.

First, the Labor Arbiter ordered24 the petitioners to file their

Comment when herein private respondent filed her Motion for the
Issuance of Writ of Execution. Second, contrary to petitioners'
allegation, a judicious review of the records would reveal to Us that
the Labor Arbiter actually issued an order25 granting the prevailing
party's Motion for the Issuance of Writ of Execution. These two
mentioned instances are already enough regard to petitioners' right
to due process, the Labor Arbiter amply accorded them such, despite
not being mandated by the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure nor
jurisprudence.

Assuming arguendo that the Labor Arbiter directly issued a

Writ of Execution sans an order approving the Motion for the
Issuance of Writ of Execution, petitioners' cause against the Labor
Arbiter would still not stand as there is no law nor jurisprudence
mandating the latter of an issuance of said order prior to the issuance
of a Writ of Execution.

23
Piedad vs. Bobilles GR 208614 dated 7 November 2017, Mayor Vargas vs. Cajucom GR
171095 dated 22 June 2015, Mejia-Espinoza vs. Carino GR 193397 dated 25 January 2017,
Lomondot vs. Hon. Balindong GR 192463 dated 13 July 2015
24
Rollo, p. 36
25
Rollo, p. 38
Hidden Sanctuary, et al. vs. Hon. Panganiban-Ortiguerra, et al. Decision
CA-GR SP No. 162327 Page 9 of 10

This answers the other issue regarding the propriety of the

Labor Arbiter's denial of herein petitioners' Motion to Quash the Writ

of Execution (for allegedly being improvidently issued). The Labor

Arbiter is correct in denying said Motion to Quash, as the Writ of
Execution was regularly and providently issued. Petitioners do not
have the right to demand from the Labor Arbiter specific procedural
acts or steps that are not even mandated by nor found in the 2011
NLRC Rules of Procedure nor jurisprudence.

Lastly, We rule that public respondents, the National Labor

Relations Commission, Sixth Division, and the Labor Arbiter did not
commit grave abuses of discretion that is so patent and so gross
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.26 After careful review of
the petition, petitioners merely questioned the propriety of public
respondents' procedural acts, which were all discretionary in nature,
utterly failing to establish any jurisdictional errors committed by the
latter. The extraordinary remedy of certiorari is available only and
restrictively for jurisdictional errors, from a public respondent's
wholly void acts.27 Accordingly, herein petitioners are not entitled to
such extraordinary remedy for the sole purpose of questioning the
public respondents' valid and sound exercises of discretion, which
are generally accorded great respect.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby

DENIED for lack of merit. The entire Decisions of the National Labor
Relations Commission, Sixth (6th) Division, in NLRC LER Case 03-
078-19, dated 15 April 2019 and of the Labor Arbiter in NLRC NCR
Case 05-07820-18, dated 28 November 2018 are both UPHELD and
AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

MARLENE GONZALES-SISON
Associate Justice

26
Pascual vs. Burgos, et al. GR 171722 dated 11 January 2016
27
Flores vs. NLRC GR 116419 dated 9 February 1996
Hidden Sanctuary, et al. vs. Hon. Panganiban-Ortiguerra, et al. Decision
CA-GR SP No. 162327 Page 10 of 10

WE CONCUR:

PABLITO A. PEREZ
Associate Justice

RAYMOND REYNOLD REYES LAUIGAN

Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is

hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court.

MARLENE B. GONZALES-SISON
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Eighth (8th) Division