G.R. No. 115951 - ZEBRA SECURITY AGENCY AND ALLIED SERVICES AND/OR NORMA G. ORTIZ, AND MA. THERESA ESTAVILLO,[1], VS. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, GREGORIO CALASAN, LABOR ARBITER; LINO R. DELA CRUZ, LEONARDO PASCUAL, JOAQUIN OLIVEROS, ANTONIO DOLLENTE, EDWIN CLARIN, ROMEO TAMAYO, AND PAC

Ruling

Accordingly, an entry of judgment was made on 6 August 1993 declaring the resolution of 18 February 1993 final and executory. On 4 October 1993 the case was remanded to the NLRC for execution. Meanwhile, on 7 June 1993 the NLRC issued an entry of judgment certifying that the resolution affirming the denial of the petition for relief became final and executory. Thus on 21 October 1993 private respondents filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution. This was opposed by petitioners in a motion to quash the writ of execution [13] and to set case for conference and/or hearing and for recomputation alleging that complainants' position papers were fabricated and perjured. [14] On 11 February 1994 the Labor Arbiter denied the motion to quash holding that "it is too late for the respondents to assail the decision and to put on hold the execution of the decision which had already become final and executory." [15] Undaunted by the denial of their motion to quash, petitioners appealed to the NLRC claiming the existence of " prima facie evidence of grave abuse of discretion of the labor arbiter in issuing the order." [16] Petitioners also collaterally attacked the final judgment awarding money claims to complainants, pointing out that the computation of the award was based merely on the allegations of complainants who presented no sufficient documentary proof. While they admitted their failure to submit the payrolls, time records and employment records of complainants, petitioners claimed that this was due to the fact that MONTILLANO's payrolls were not yet in their possession and their own records themselves were voluminous and not properly sorted out for submission. [17] They consequently prayed for the annulment of the order and recomputation of the money claims. On 28 April 1994 the Third Division of the NLRC [18] dismissed the appeal holding that it was filed out of time and that even assuming that it was seasonably made the decision relative to the computations of the award had already become final and executory. In a last ditch effort to prevent execution of the judgment, petitioners now file this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. They pray that a preliminary injunction be issued to enjoin the execution of the decision; the resolution of public respondent NLRC dated 28 April 1994 dismissing the appeal be annulled; and, the decision of public respondent Labor Arbiter dated 22 May 1992 be likewise set aside. They also ask that public respondents be ordered to allow petitioners to present their evidence before the Labor Arbiter. For obvious reasons, the petition must fail. In a minute resolution dated 2 June 1993 we already resolved that no grave abuse of discretion was committed by public respondents NLRC and Labor Arbiter in issuing their assailed decisions. Thus we said - Acting on the petition for certiorari of the decision dated February 15, 1993 (sic) [19] of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC-CA No