Scribd
Upload
358 views1 page

DONE Frondozo vs. Manila Electric Company. G.R. No. 178379, August 22, 2017

This case involved a petition for review stemming from a labor dispute between employees (petitioners) of Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) and MERALCO regarding an illegal strike. The NLRC initially ruled the strike was illegal but ordered petitioners' reinstatement, but two divisions of the Court of Appeals issued conflicting decisions on the case. The issue was whether the NLRC properly issued a writ of preliminary injunction given the conflicting CA decisions. The Supreme Court ruled the NLRC's injunction was proper, as conflicting final decisions created a situation where execution of one decision would be unjust or inequitable, analogous to a change in circumstances making execution unjust.

Uploaded by

Kathlene Jao
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
358 views1 page

DONE Frondozo vs. Manila Electric Company. G.R. No. 178379, August 22, 2017

This case involved a petition for review stemming from a labor dispute between employees (petitioners) of Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) and MERALCO regarding an illegal strike. The NLRC initially ruled the strike was illegal but ordered petitioners' reinstatement, but two divisions of the Court of Appeals issued conflicting decisions on the case. The issue was whether the NLRC properly issued a writ of preliminary injunction given the conflicting CA decisions. The Supreme Court ruled the NLRC's injunction was proper, as conflicting final decisions created a situation where execution of one decision would be unjust or inequitable, analogous to a change in circumstances making execution unjust.

Uploaded by

Kathlene Jao
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Crispin S, Frondozo, et. al. vs.

Manila Electric Company


G.R. No. 178379; August 22, 2017
Carpio, J.

FACTS:
The is a petition for review on Certiorari which stemmed from a certified case to the NLRC
which ruled that the subject strike conducted was illegal but ordered the reinstatement of petitioners.

The Acting DOLE Secretary certified the issues of the strike conducted by petitioners Crispin
Frondozo, et.al., employees of respondent Manila Electric Company (MERALCO), to the NLRC for
compulsory arbitration. While the case was pending, petitioners were dismissed by MERALCO for
committing unlawful acts and violence during the strike. Thereafter, another strike was again staged
on the ground of union busting. The issues of the second strike were again certified to the NLRC. The
NLRC ruled that the strike was illegal but ordered the reinstatement of petitioners because their
participation in the commission of illegal acts in the strike were not proved. The NLRC issued an Entry
of Judgment, stating that the NLRC Order became final and executory. Labor Arbiter Veneranda C.
Guerrero issued a Writ of Execution directing the reinstatement of the respondents.

Later, the CA’s Special Second division ruled in favor of MERALCO. On 27 January 2004, the
CA’s Fourteenth Division ruled in favor of petitioners. Petitioners then filed a petition before the SC
questioning the CA Special Second Division’s ruling, while respondent also filed a petition before the
SC questioning the CA Fourteenth Division’s decision. Both petitions were denied, and such denial
attained finality. Respondent also filed a motion for a writ of preliminary injunction against the writ of
execution issued by the LA on the basis of the CA decision in its favor. The NLRC granted the motion
due to difficulty in proceeding with the execution given the conflicting decisions of the Court of
Appeals' Special Second Division and the Court of Appeals' Fourteenth Division.

ISSUE:
Was it proper for the NLRC to issue a writ of preliminary injunction in view of the conflicting
decisions by the different divisions of the CA?

RULING:
Yes, it was proper for the NLRC to issue a writ of preliminary injunction.

There are instances when writs of execution may be assailed. They are: (1) the writ of
execution varies the judgment. (2) there has been a change in the situation of the parties making
execution inequitable or unjust, (3) execution is sought to be enforced against property exempt from
execution, (4) it appears that the controversy has been submitted to the judgment of the court;(5) the
terms of the judgment are not clear enough; or (6) it appears that the writ of execution has been
improvidently issued, or issued without authority.

The situation in this case is analogous to a change in the situation of the parties making
execution unjust or inequitable in view of the conflicting decisions of the CA divisions, both of which
have attained finality. MERALCO's refusal to reinstate petitioners and to pay their backwages is
justified by the 30 May 2003 Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 72480. On the other hand, petitioners'
insistence on the execution of judgment is anchored on the 27 January 2004 Decision of the Court of
Appeals' Fourteenth Division in CA-G.R. SP No. 72509.

Therefore, it was proper for the NLRC to issue a writ of preliminary injunction in view of the
conflicting decisions of the CA.

You might also like