G.R. NO. 157232 - NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION (NAMAWU), VS. HON. ADELINA CALDERON- BARGAS, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 78, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MORONG, RIZAL, AND NORMA G. MITRA.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, a writ of execution was issued on August 31, 1999. NLRC Sheriff Juanito Atienza levied upon a parcel of land belonging to private respondent. As the highest bidder in the execution sale conducted by the Sheriff, petitioner acquired title to the property on December 6, 1999. On July 16, 2001, private respondent filed a complaint for Annulment of Final Deed of Sale, Certificate of Sale, Notice of Levy on Execution and Cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title No. M-105453 [3] against petitioner, Sheriff Juanito Atienza and the Register of Deeds of Morong, Rizal, Dinna P. Mantuano. The case was assigned to public respondent Judge Adelina Calderon-Bargas of Branch 78, RTC, Morong, Rizal. In its Answer with Counterclaim and Opposition to the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order, petitioner averred that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case because it is an offshoot of a labor dispute that had been decided by the NLRC. On January 21, 2002, public respondent issued an Order dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and ruling that any decision in the civil case may render ineffective the decision rendered in the labor case. Private respondents subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was denied in an Order dated June 19, 2002, the pertinent portions of which read: Plaintiff stated that she does not question the legality or validity of the decision of the Labor Arbiter in Case No. RAB-IV-8-4482-92, but the procedure followed by Ms. Dinna Mantuano-Lao, [Register of Deeds], and Sheriff Juanito J. Atienza, when the former cancelled the name of the plaintiff on TCT No. M-46298, and issued TCT No. M-105453 in the name of defendant NAMAWU. However, a reading of the allegations in the complaint shows that plaintiff questions not only the process of notification in the Notice of Levy, but the alleged lack of notice of the proceedings in NLRC Case No. RAB-IV-8-4482-92 had before the Labor Arbiter. She alleges in the complaint that plaintiff never received any summons or copy of the complaint in the aforesaid case; she never hired a lawyer to represent her in said case; she never received any NOTICES of any decision, execution, levy, auction or sale. Considering that plaintiff is questioning her lack of notice from the issuance of summons, until the levy or attachment of the property in question, it is clear, therefore, that plaintiff does not only question the procedure followed by Sheriff Juanito J. Atienza, but also the procedure of the Labor Arbiter, since she was allegedly not given notice on all the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter. Meanwhile, if the plaintiff would continue her cause of action against the [Register] of Deeds, there is a need to amend the complaint, naming NAMAWU as a nominal party; and the Register of Deeds as the indispensable party. [4] WHEREFORE, premises considered, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.