Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sadol and Yupangco
Sadol and Yupangco
1 Party Who Failed to Appeal on Time FromDecision of LA May Still File Motion
for Reconsideration of NLRC Decision
CASE: Sadol v. Pilipinas Kao, Inc.Facts:-Illegal dismissal case filed by Sadol
againstrespondents. The LA rendered a decisionordering private respondent to pay
petitioner separation pay at 1 month for every year of service. Petitioner appealed
to the NLRC.Respondents also appealed but it was filed out of time-The NLRC
modified the appealed decisionordering respondent to reinstate petitioner w/
fullbackwages & other accrued benefits.Respondents appeal was dismissed for
beingfiled out of time-Upon receipt of respondent of the NLRCdecision, a motion for
reconsideration was filedw/c petitioner opposed-The NLRC set aside its decision &
dismissed thecase for lack of merit-Hence, the petition for certiorari
Ruling:- Par t y who f ai l ed t o appeal f r om a deci si on of t heLA to the NLRC
can still participate in a separateappeal timely filed by the adverse party by amotion for
reconsideration of the decision of theNLRC on appeal- The r ul es of t echni cal i t y
must yi el d t o t he br oader interest of justice. It is only by giving due course
to the motion for reconsideration that was timelyfiled that the NLRC may be able to
equitablyevaluate the conflicting versions of facts presentedby the parties
Yupangco Cotton Mills, Inc. vs. CA (2002)Facts:
Petitioner contended that a sheriff of the NLRC erroneously and unlawfully levied
certain propertieswhich it claims as its own. It filed a 3
rd
party claim withthe Labor Arbiter and recovery of property and damageswith the
RTC. The RTC dismissed the case. In the CA, thecourt dismissed the petition on the
ground of forumshopping and that the proper remedy was appeal in duecourse, not
certiorari or mandamus. Petitioner filed aMFR and argued that the filing of a
complaint for
accionreinvindicatoria
with the RTC was proper because it is aremedy specifically granted to an owner
(whoseproperties were subjected to a writ of execution toenforce a decision
rendered in a labor dispute in which itwas not a party). The MFR was denied. Hence,
petitionerfiled this appeal.
Issue:
Whether the CA has jurisdiction over the case
Held:YES
A third party whose property has been levied upon by asheriff to enforce a decision
against a judgment debtor isafforded with several alternative remedies to protect
itsinterests. The third party may avail himself of alternativeremedies cumulatively,
and one will not preclude thethird party from availing himself of the other
alternativeremedies in the event he failed in the remedy firstavailed of.Thus, a third
party may avail himself of the followingalternative remedies:a) File a third party
claim with the sheriff of theLabor Arbiter, andb) If the third party claim is denied,
the third partymay appeal the denial to the NLRC.Even if a third party claim was
denied, a third partymay still file a proper action with a competent courtto recover
ownership of the property illegally seizedby the sheriff.The filing of a third party
claim with the Labor Arbiterand the NLRC did not preclude the petitioner from filing
asubsequent action for recovery of property and damageswith the Regional Trial
Court. And, the institution of suchcomplaint will not make petitioner guilty of
forumshopping.