G.R.No.178593.February15,2012.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the

PRIVATIZATIONANDMANAGEMENTOFFICE(PMO),
petitioner, vs. PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS, INC.
(PNEI), PANTRANCO EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
(PEAPTGWO), EUSEBIO RAMOSO, CIRIACO M.
MAGSINO, A. CACHUELA, A. CAMUS, M. CALAHI, R.
CANO,B.T.LANTANO,L.BERSAMINA,A.ALFAROand
495OTHERS,respondents.
Civil Procedure; Motion for Reconsideration; A motion for
reconsideration is an indispensable condition before an aggrieved
party can resort to the special civil action for certiorari under Rule
65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended; Exceptions.
The wellestablished rule is that a motion for reconsideration is an
indispensableconditionbeforeanaggrievedpartycanresorttothe
specialcivilactionforcertiorariunderRule65ofthe1997Rulesof
Civil Procedure, as amended. A motion for reconsideration of the
order,resolutionordecisionoftheNLRCshouldbeseasonablyfiled
asapreconditionforpursuinganyfurtherorsubsequentrecourse;
otherwise, the order, resolution or decision would become final and
executory after ten calendar days from receipt thereof. The
rationalefortheruleisthatthelawintendstoaffordtheNLRCan
opportunitytorectifysucherrorsormistakesitmayhavecommitted
before resort to courts of justice can be had. Of course, the rule is
notabsoluteandjurisprudencehaslaiddownexceptionswhenthe
filing of a petition for certiorari is proper notwithstanding the
failuretofileamotionforreconsideration.Thus,resorttothecourts
underRule65isallowedevenwithoutamotionforreconsideration
first having been filed: (a) where the order is a patent nullity, as
where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; (b) where the questions
raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and
passeduponbythelowercourt,orarethesameasthoseraisedand
passed upon in the lower court; (c) where there is an urgent
necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay
wouldprejudicetheinterestsoftheGovernmentorofthepetitioner
orthesubjectmatterofthe

_______________
*FIRSTDIVISION.

200

200

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Republic vs. Pantranco North Express, Inc. (PNEI)

petitionisperishable;(d)where,underthecircumstances,amotion
for reconsideration would be useless; (e) where petitioner was
deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief; (f)
where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent
andthegrantingofsuchreliefbythetrialcourtisimprobable;(g)
where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of
duepro
cess;(h)wheretheproceedingwasex parteorinwhichthe
petitioner had no opportunity to object; and, (i) where the issue
raisedisonepurelyoflaworpublicinterestisinvolved.

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorarioftheresolutionsofthe
CourtofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheresolutionoftheCourt.
The Solicitor General forpetitioner.
Office of the Government Corporate Counselforprivate
respondentPNEI.
RESOLUTION
VILLARAMA,JR.,J.:
BeforeusisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule
45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended,
assailing the January 8, 20071 and June 26, 20072
ResolutionsoftheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.SPNo.
97348.TheCAdismissedthepetitionforcertiorarifiledby
petitioner Privatization and Management Office (PMO) to
set aside the September 27, 2006 Resolution3 of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The CA
ruled that the petition was premature since petitioner did
notseekreconsiderationoftheassailedNLRCresolution.
_______________
1Rollo,pp.4546.PennedbyAssociateJusticeRemediosA.Salazar
Fernando with Associate Justices Jose C. Mendoza (now a member of
thisCourt)andRamonM.Bato,Jr.concurring.

2Id.,atpp.4749.
3Id.,atpp.8288.
201

VOL.666,FEBRUARY15,2012

201

Republic vs. Pantranco North Express, Inc. (PNEI)

Thefactsofthecasefollow:
OnMay27,1993,theLaborArbiterrenderedaDecision4
in the consolidated complaints5 for illegal retrenchment
filed by Pantranco Employees Association, et al., against
respondent Pantranco North Express, Inc. (PNEI). The
LaborArbiterorderedPNEItopayeachofthe345illegally
retrenched employees four months back wages in the total
amount of P11,134,954 plus attorneys fees equivalent to
10% of the monetary award. The NLRC affirmed the
decision,andthedecisionbecameexecutoryonNovember3,
1993.6
The judgment was partially satisfied in the amount of
P895,000,leavingabalanceofP10,239,954plusP1,113,495
as attorneys fees or a total of P11,353,449.7 Several alias
writs of execution were issued but were returned
unsatisfied. On September 6, 2001, a 5th Alias Writ of
Executionwasissued.8
Onthestrengthofa5thAliasWritofExecution,aNotice
ofLevy/SaleonExecutionofPersonalProperty9wasissued.
Certainpropertiesconsistingofmachinery,equipmenttools,
spare parts, dilapidated buses and unserviceable motor
vehicles formerly belonging to PNEI and located at
Pantranco Compound, Himlayan Road, Barangay Pasong
Tamo, Tandang Sora, Quezon City, were levied upon and
scheduled for auction sale on September 18, 2001 at 11:00
a.m.
OnSeptember17,2001,petitionerfiledaNoticeofThird
Party Claim10 over the levied properties and attached to
said
_______________
4Records,Vol.1,pp.1931.
5 Docketed as NLRC NCR Cases Nos. 00120724292, 000100706
93,00010003293and00010007693.
6Records,Vol.I,p.33.
7 Id.
8 Id.,atpp.3234.

9 Rollo,pp.8990.
10Id.,atpp.9192.
202

202

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Republic vs. Pantranco North Express, Inc. (PNEI)

notice an Affidavit of ThirdParty Claim.11 Petitioner

assertedthatthepropertiesaremortgagedtotheNational
Government through its trustee, the Asset Privatization
Trust(nowPrivatizationandManagementOfficeorPMO).
Petitioner argued that the National Government has a
superior lien over the properties and that the
claims/receivables of the National Government must be
satisfiedfirstbeforethejudgmentinfavoroftheretrenched
employees.
IntheirOppositiontotheThirdPartyClaimwithMotion
toDismiss,respondentemployeesarguedthatPMOhasno
legalrighttoappropriatethePNEIsassetsandthatPMOs
takeover of PNEIs assets is only for the purpose of
privatization and disposition to pay the claims of PNEIs
creditoremployees.12
In reply, petitioner changed its stance and no longer
assertedthattheNationalGovernmenthasamortgagelien
over the subject properties but instead owned them.
Petitioner averred that its ownership over the subject
properties arose because PNEI obtained various loan
accommodations and other credit facilities from the
NationalInvestmentandDevelopmentCorporation(NIDC),
asubsidiaryarmofPNB,andexecutedmortgagesoverits
real and personal properties, including the properties
subject of this case. Upon the dissolution of NIDC, all of
NIDCsaccountsweretransferredtoPNBwhichcontinued
toextendfinancialandcreditaccommodationstoPNEI.On
July 28, 1983, PNEI restructured its loan obligations to
PNB and executed in favor of PNB a Dacion en Pago
conveying certain properties. In 1993, PNEI closed shop.
Then, on March 28, 1994, pursuant to Proclamation No.
50,13
_______________
11Id.,atpp.9394.
12Id.,atp.102.
13 PROCLAIMING

AND

LAUNCHING

PROGRAM

FOR THE

EXPEDITIOUS

DISPOSITION
AND/ OR

AND

THE

PRIVATIZATION

OF

ASSETS THEREOF,

CERTAIN GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS

AND

CREATING

THE

COMMITTEE

ON

PRIVATIZATIONANDTHE ASSETPRIVATIZATIONTRUST.
203

VOL.666,FEBRUARY15,2012

203

Republic vs. Pantranco North Express, Inc. (PNEI)

asamendedbyProclamationNo.50A14andAdministrative
Order No. 1415 dated February 3, 1987, PNB assigned,
transferred and conveyed to the Asset Privatization Trust
(nowPMO)intrustfortheNationalGovernment,allofits
rights, title and interest on its nonperforming assets,
includingthecreditandmortgageaccountofPNEI.Later,
PNEIs assets, including the subject properties, were
foreclosedandtransferredtoAPTintrustfortheRepublic
ofthePhilippines.16
Hence,asPNEInolongerownedthesubjectproperties,
petitioner argued that said properties cannot be made to
satisfy the 1993 judgment in favor of respondent PNEI
employees.
InanOrder17datedOctober22,2001,theLaborArbiter
denied petitioners thirdparty claim for want of merit and
directed the sheriff to proceed with the execution process.
The Labor Arbiter noted that the Notice of ThirdParty
Claim filed by the Asset Privatization Trust had been
denied in an Order dated July 6, 1994 and no appeal was
timely filed. Moreover, the Labor Arbiter noted that
petitionerPMOfailedtointroducedocumentswhichwould
show that said junk buses, scrap equipment, other motor
poolscrapandsparepartswereindeedmortgaged.
OnSeptember27,2006,theNLRCissuedaResolution18
affirmingtheOctober22,2001OrderoftheLaborArbiter.
The NLRC also ordered that the records of the case be
remanded to the Arbitration Branch for immediate
appropriateproceedings.
_______________
14ModifyingProclamationNo.50.
15 APPROVING THE IDENTIFICATION

OF AND

TRANSFER

TO THE

N ATIONAL

GOVERNMENTOFCERTAINASSETS ANDLIABILITIES OF THE DEVELOPMENTBANK

OF THE P HILIPPINES AND THE P HILIPPINE N ATIONALBANK.

16CARollo,pp.4951.
17Rollo,pp.101107.

18Id.,atpp.8288.
204

204

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Republic vs. Pantranco North Express, Inc. (PNEI)

Without filing a motion for reconsideration, petitioner

filedapetitionforcertioraribeforetheCA.
OnJanuary8,2007,theCAissuedaResolution19which
denied due course and dismissed the petition for being
premature. The CA held that petitioners failure to file a
motion for reconsideration of the NLRC resolution was a
fatalproceduraldefect.
OnJune26,2007,theCAalsodeniedpetitionersmotion
forreconsideration.Hence,thispetition.
Petitionerallegesthat
I
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT DISMISSED
PETITIONERS PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT NO PRIOR
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WAS FILED BEFORE THE
NATIONALLABORRELATIONSCOMMISSION.
II
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO GIVE
DUE
COURSE
TO
PETITIONERS
MOTION
FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF THE RESOLUTION DATED JANUARY
8,2007.20

Essentially,theissueforourresolutionis,didtheCAerr
indismissingpetitionersRule65petition?
Petitioner argues that its petition should have been
givenduecoursenotwithstandingitsfailuretofileamotion
for reconsideration of the September 27, 2006 NLRC
Resolution. Petitioner cites the following grounds: (a) the
filing of such motion for reconsideration would have been
useless; (b) the matter is one of extreme urgency; (c) the
question raised is purely of law; (d) public interest is
involved; (e) the application of the rule would cause great
and irreparable damage to petitioner; and (f) judicial
interventionisurgentlynecessary.
_______________
19Id.,atpp.4546.
20Id.,atp.22.

205

VOL.666,FEBRUARY15,2012

205

Republic vs. Pantranco North Express, Inc. (PNEI)

Petitioner claims that the filing of a motion for
reconsideration would be inadequate and entirely useless
becausetheNLRCisbentonimmediatelyproceedingwith
execution.Petitioneraddsthatthematterisoneofextreme
urgency which calls for direct, urgent and immediate
judicial intervention. It involves public interest since the
subject properties already belong to the State; hence,
beyondthelongarmofthelaboragencytoawardinfavorof
theretrenchedemployees.
Thepetitionisbereftofmerit.
The wellestablished rule is that a motion for
reconsideration is an indispensable condition before an
aggrieved party can resort to the special civil action for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended.21 A motion for reconsideration of
the order, resolution or decision of the NLRC should be
seasonablyfiledasapreconditionforpursuinganyfurther
or subsequent recourse; otherwise, the order, resolution or
decision would become final and executory after ten
calendar days from receipt thereof.22 The rationale for the
rule is that the law intends to afford the NLRC an
opportunity to rectify such errors or mistakes it may have
committedbeforeresorttocourtsofjusticecanbehad.23
Ofcourse,theruleisnotabsoluteandjurisprudencehas
laid down exceptions when the filing of a petition for
certiorari is proper notwithstanding the failure to file a
motionforreconsideration.Thus,resorttothecourtsunder
Rule 65 is allowed even without a motion for
reconsiderationfirsthavingbeenfiled:
(a)where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo
hasnojurisdiction;
_______________
21Audi AG v. Mejia, G.R. No. 167533, July 27, 2007, 528 SCRA 378,
383.
22 Biogenerics Marketing and Research Corporation v. National
Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 122725, September 8, 1999, 313
SCRA748,754.

23Id.
206

206

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Republic vs. Pantranco North Express, Inc. (PNEI)

(b)where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have

been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the
sameasthoseraisedandpasseduponinthelowercourt;
(c)where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the
question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of
theGovernmentorofthepetitionerorthesubjectmatterofthe
petitionisperishable;
(d)where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration
wouldbeuseless;
(e)where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is
extremeurgencyforrelief;
(f)where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is
urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is
improbable;
(g)where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack
ofdueprocess;
(h)where the proceeding was ex parte or in which the petitioner
hadnoopportunitytoobject;and,
(i)where the issue raised is one purely of law or public interest is
involved.24

However, petitioner failed to show that this case falls

under any of the exceptions. Here, except for its bare
allegation, petitioner failed to present any plausible
justificationfordispensingwiththerequirementofaprior
motionforreconsideration.Notably,thepetitionfiledbefore
the CA did not state any reason for its failure to file a
motionforreconsiderationfromtheNLRCresolution.Itwas
only in its motion for reconsideration of the CA resolution
dismissing the petition and in the present petition that
petitioner justified its nonfiling of a motion for
reconsideration. According to petitioner, a motion for
reconsideration would be inadequate and useless since the
laboragencyisbentonimmediatelyproceedingwith
_______________
24 Sim v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 157376,
October2,2007,534SCRA515,521522.

207

VOL.666,FEBRUARY15,2012

207

Republic vs. Pantranco North Express, Inc. (PNEI)

the execution, levy and sale on execution of the subject
properties.Butitisnotforpetitionertodeterminewhether
the filing of a motion for reconsideration should be
dispensedwith.AsenunciatedinthecaseofSim v. National
Labor Relations Commission:25
Itmustbeemphasizedthatawritofcertiorari is a prerogative
writ,neverdemandableasamatterofright,neverissuedexceptin
the exercise of judicial discretion. Hence, he who seeks a writ of
certiorari must apply for it only in the manner and strictly in
accordancewiththeprovisionsofthelawandtheRules.Petitioner
maynotarrogatetohimselfthedeterminationofwhetheramotion
for reconsideration is necessary or not. To dispense with the
requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration, petitioner must
show a concrete, compelling, and valid reason for doing so, which
petitioner failed to do. Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly
dismissedthepetition.

It must be emphasized that the filing of a motion for

reconsideration and filing it on time are not mere
technicalities of procedure.26 These are jurisdictional and
mandatory requirements which must be strictly complied
with.27Thus,failuretofileamotionforreconsiderationwith
theNLRCbeforeavailingoneselfofthespecialcivilaction
forcertiorariisafatalinfirmity.
Be that as it may, even if we set aside the procedural
infirmity,theCAcouldstillnotbefaultedfornotgivingdue
course to the petition since petitioner failed to show any
errororgraveabuseofdiscretiononthepartoftheLabor
Arbiter and the NLRC in denying its thirdparty claim.
Both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are in accord that
petitionerPMOasthesuccessorentityofAPTcannolonger
question
_______________
25 Id., at pp. 522523, citing Cervantes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
166755,November18,2005,475SCRA562,570.
26 Lopez Dela Rosa Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals,
G.R.No.148470,April29,2005,457SCRA614,628.
27Id.

208

208

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Republic vs. Pantranco North Express, Inc. (PNEI)

theNoticeofLevyand/orSaleonExecutionofthePersonal
Assets/Properties of PNEI. As early as July 6, 1994, an
order had been issued by the Labor Arbiter which denied
the ThirdParty Claim of PMOs predecessorininterest,
APT, to stop the execution of the levied buses owned by
PNEI.TherebeingnoappealinterposedbytheOfficeofthe
GovernmentCorporateCounselfromsuchorder,itbecame
final and executory. PMO cannot now be allowed to raise
the same ground invoked by APT to again delay the
executioninsatisfactionofthe1993judgmentoftheLabor
ArbiterinfavorofrespondentPNEIemployees.Wefindno
cogentreasoninthiscasetodeviatefromtherulingsofboth
laborofficeswhosefindingsarebasedonestablishedfacts.
Furthermore,therecordsarebereftofanyconcreteproof
that the subject properties of PNEI were among those
includedinthelistofaccountsthatweretransferredtothe
National Government and which were subsequently
transferredtoAPT/PMO.WequotewithapprovaltheLabor
Arbiterspertinentfindingsonthismatter,towit:
x x x PMO failed to introduce documentary evidence showing
that the personal properties levied were indeed subjected to a
chattel mortgage to NIDC and/or PNB. It is to be noted that the
Dacion en Pago covered a general statement on Pantrancos
assets. There is no single piece of evidence that said junk buses,
scrap equipments, and other motorpool scrap and spare parts were
indeedmortgaged(chattel).28

But even assuming that the levied properties were

included in those transferred to the National Government,
thisCourtspronouncementintherelatedcaseofRepublic
v. National Labor Relations Commission29astotheclaimof
ownership of APT (PMO) over the PNEI properties
entrusted to it pursuant to Presidential Proclamation No.
50,isenlightening.TheCourtsaid,
_______________
28Rollo,p.106.
29G.R.No.120385,October17,1996,263SCRA290.

209

VOL.666,FEBRUARY15,2012

209

Republic vs. Pantranco North Express, Inc. (PNEI)

xxxAmatterthatmustnotbeoverlookedisthefactthatthe
inclusion of APT as a respondent in the monetary claims against
PNEIismerelytheconsequenceofitsbeingaconservatorofassets,
arolethatAPTnormallyplaysin,ortherelationshipthatordinarily
it maintains with, corporations identified for and while under
privatization. The liability of APT under this particular
arrangement, nothing else having been shown, should be co
extensivewiththeamountofassetstakenoverfromtheprivatized
firm. PNEIs assets obviously remain to be subject to execution by
judgmentcreditorsofPNEI.Accordingly, the levy and auction
sale of the property of PNEI to satisfy the monetary
judgment rendered in favor of PNEI employees can be
sustained since such assets are to be deemed subject to all
valid claims against PNEI.30 [Emphasisours.]

Insum,theCAdidnoterrindismissingthepetition.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDENIED.TheJanuary8,
2007andJune26,2007ResolutionsoftheCourtofAppeals
inCAG.R.SPNo.97348areherebyAFFIRMED.
Nocosts.
SOORDERED.
Corona (C.J., Chairperson), LeonardoDe
BersaminandDel Castillo, JJ.,concur.

Castro,

Petition denied, resolutions affirmed.

Notes.Asageneralrule,amotionforreconsideration
should precede recourse to certiorari in order to give the
trial court an opportunity to correct the error that it may
havecommitted.(The ParentsTeachers Association (PTA) of
St. Mathew Christian Academy vs. The Metropolitan Bank
and Trust Co.,614SCRA41[2010])
Motion for reconsideration of the assailed RTC order is
required prior to the filing of a petition for prohibition or
man
_______________
30Id.,atpp.301302.

210

210

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Republic vs. Pantranco North Express, Inc. (PNEI)

damus, the Court recognizes certain exceptions to such

requirement as enumerated in Diamond Builders
Conglomeration v. Country Bankers Insurance Corporation,
540SCRA194(2007).(AFP Mutual Benefit Association, Inc.
vs. Regional Trial Court, Marikina City, Branch 193, 642
SCRA720[2011])
o0o

Copyright 2013 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.