Department of Justice: Opinions

Department of Justice:

OPINION NO. 55, S. 2005


December 13, 2005

Administrator Benedicto B. Ulep
Land Registration Authority
East Avenue corner NIA Road
Quezon City

Administrator Ulep:

This has reference to your request for confirmation of your view that the grant of privileges and other favorable terms to the Philippine Airlines (PAL) shall also ipso facto operate equally in favor of Cebu Pacific only upon showing by the latter of a clear proof that PAL’s enjoyment of the privileges and favorable terms accorded to it will place Cebu Pacific at a disadvantage.

The instant request stemmed from the letter of Atty. Perry L. Pe, Corporate Secretary of Cebu Air, Inc. (“Cebu Pacific”), requesting confirmation that the chattel mortgage to be constituted over four (4) Airbus A319-100 aircraft to be acquired by Cebu Air, Inc. (Cebu Pacific) is exempt from registration fees imposed under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree, and the Revised Administrative Code.

It appears that Cebu Pacific, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines, and a holder of a legislative franchise granted under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7151 (An Act Granting Cebu Air, Inc., a Franchise to Establish, Operate and Maintain Transport Services for the Carriage of Passengers, Mail, Goods and Property by Air, Both Domestic and International, With Cebu as Its Base), executed an Aircraft Purchase Agreement with Airbus S.A.S. over twelve (12) A319-100 aircrafts for use in domestic and international operations as part of its long-term refleeting and modernization programs; that various French, German and British financial institutions will provide the financing for the transaction with corresponding guaranty or insurance by COFACE, Euler Hermes and Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECDG); that in compliance with one of the lenders’ conditions for the extension of the loan package, Cebu Pacific assigned the Aircraft Purchase Agreement to a Special Purpose Corporation (SPC) domiciled outside of the Philippines; that the SPC shall hold title to the aircraft and shall act as the borrower under relevant loan agreements and that Cebu Pacific shall then enter into a financial lease agreement with the SPC.

It likewise appears that Cebu Pacific, being the ultimate borrower, shall actually bear all the costs relating to the registration and payment of any applicable taxes of the chattel mortgage and other security documents to be constituted over the subject aircrafts. Cebu Pacific is, therefore, requesting confirmation of its exemption from payment of chattel mortgage registration fees over the four (4) Airbus A319-100.

You state that the exemption from payment of registration fees and other privileges granted to PAL continues to be in full force and effect, and subsists notwith-standing the privatization of the Philippines Airlines, in the absence of a law amending or withdrawing the privileges contained in PAL’s charter, P.D. No. 1590. It is your view, however, that before it can avail of the same privileges enjoyed by PAL, Cebu Pacific has to establish that the exemptions granted to, and enjoyed, by PAL will tend to place Cebu Pacific at any disadvantage.

Presidential Decree No. 1590 (An Act Granting a New Fran-chise to Philippine Airlines, Inc. to Establish, to Operate, and Maintain Air-Transport Services in the Philippines and Other Countries) which continues to extend certain privileges to Pal in the absence of any law amending or withdrawing the privileges in its charter, reads in part:

Sec. 13. In consideration of the franchise and rights hereby granted, the grantee shall pay to the Philippine Govern-ment during the life of this franchise whichever of subsections (a) and (b) hereunder will result in a lower tax:

(a) The basic corporate income tax based on the grantee’s annual net taxable income com-puted in accordance with the provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code; or

(b) A franchise tax of two per cent (2%) of the gross revenues derived by the grantee from all sources, without distinc-tion as to transport or non-transport opera-tions; provided, that with respect to international air-transport service, only the gross pas-senger, mail, and freight revenues from its outgoing flights shall be subject to this tax.

(1) The tax paid by the grantee under either of the above alter-natives shall be in lieu of all other taxes, duties, royalties, registration, license, and other fees and charges of any kind, nature, or descrip-tion, imposed, levied, established, assessed, or national authority or government agency, now or in the future, including but not limited to the following:
xxx xxx xxx

(4) All taxes on interest, fees, and other charges on foreign loans obtained and other obligations incurred by the grantee where the payment of such taxes is assumed by the grantee;

(5) All taxes, fees, and other charges on the regis-tration, licensing, acquisition, and transfer of aircraft, equipment, motor vehicles, and all other personal and real property of the grantee; and
xxx xxx xxx

(emphasis supplied)

On the other hand, the legislative franchise granted in favor of Cebu Air, Inc., specifically Section 11 of R.A. No. 7151 provides: SEC. 11. Tax Provisions.
xxx xxx xxx

In the event that any competing individual, part-nership or corporation re-ceives and enjoys tax privi-leges and other favorable terms which tend to place the herein grantee at any disad-vantage, then such provisions shall be deemed ipso facto part hereof and shall operate equally in favor of the grantee.
xxx xxx xxx
(emphasis supplied)

Based on the foregoing premises, this Department confirms that the “most favored treatment” clause found in Section 11 of R.A. No. 7151 expressly provides that tax privileges or favorable term/s received or enjoyed by any competing individual, partnership or corporation - in this case, PAL, shall automatically be deemed incorporated in the franchise of Cebu Pacific.

The basic idea of the aforesaid clause is “fair play”, such that a rival firm will not gain an undue or unfair advantage over the other in the pursuit of their respective competing business. In other words, the purpose of the said clause is to place the holder thereof on an equal footing with its rival enterprise by not giving such competitors undue advantage (Secretary of Justice Opinion No. 51, s. 1987).

Please be guided accordingly.


Very truly yours,


(Sgd.) RAUL M. GONZALEZ
Secretary

Administrative Rule And Regulation: The 2005 Revised Rules NLRC

Administrative Rule And Regulation



The 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the National
Labor Relations Commission





Pursuant to the provisions of Article 218 of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines, the following Revised Rules of Procedure governing arbitration proceedings before Labor Arbiters and the Commission are hereby adopted and



promulgated:

RULE I


TITLE AND CONSTRUCTION

SECTION 1. TITLE OF THE RULES. - These Rules shall be known as the “2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the National Labor Relations Commission”.


SECTION 2. CONSTRUCTION. - These Rules shall be liberally construed to carry out the objectives of the Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines and other relevant legislations, and to assist the parties in obtaining just, expeditious and inexpensive resolution and settlement of labor disputes.


SECTION 3. SUPPLETORY APPLICATION OF THE RULES OF COURT. - In the absence of any applicable provision in these Rules, and in order to effectuate the objectives of the Labor Code, the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court of the Philippines may, in the interest of expeditious dispensation of labor justice and whenever practicable and convenient, be applied by analogy or in a suppletory character and effect.

RULE II


DEFINITION OF TERMS

SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. - The terms and phrases defined in Article 212 of the Labor Code, as amended, shall be given the same meanings when used herein.


As used herein, “Regional Arbitration Branch” shall mean any of the regional arbitration branches or sub-regional branches of the Commission.


RULE III


PLEADINGS, NOTICES AND APPEARANCES

SECTION 1. COMPLAINT. - a) A complaint or petition is a pleading alleging the cause or causes of action of the complainant or petitioner.



The names and addresses of all complainants or petitioners and respondents must be stated in the complaint or petition. It shall be signed under oath by the complainant or petitioner, with a declaration of non-forum shopping.


b) A party having more than one cause of action against the other party, arising out of the same relationship, shall include all of them in one complaint or petition.


c) No amendment of the complaint or petition shall be allowed after the filing of position papers, unless with leave of the Labor Arbiter or the Commission.


SECTION 2. CAPTION AND TITLE. - In all cases filed with the Commission or with any of its

Regional Arbitration Branches, the party initiating the action shall be called the “Complainant” or “Petitioner”, and the opposing party the “Respondent”.


The full names of all the real parties in interest, whether natural or juridical persons or entities authorized by law, shall be stated in the caption of the complaint or petition, as well as in the decisions, resolutions or orders of the Labor Arbiter or the Commission.


SECTION 3. ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS. - Within two (2) days from receipt of a complaint or amended complaint, the Labor Arbiter shall issue the required summons, attaching thereto a copy of the complaint or amended complaint. The summons shall specify the date, time and place of the mandatory conciliation and mediation confe-rence in two (2) settings.


SECTION 4. PROHIBITED PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS. - The following pleadings and motions shall not be allowed and acted upon nor elevated to the Commission in all cases covered by these Rules:


a) Motion to dismiss the complaint except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, improper venue, res adju-dicata, prescription and forum shopping;


b) Motion for a bill of particulars;


c) Motion for new trial;


d) Petition for relief from judgment when filed with the Labor Arbiter;


e) Petition for certiorari, man-damus or prohibition;


f) Motion to declare respondent in default;


g) Motion for reconsideration or appeal from any interlocutory order of the Labor Arbiter.


SECTION 5. FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS. - All pleadings in connection with the case shall be filed with the appropriate docketing unit of the Regional Arbitration Branch or the Commission, as the case maybe.


The party filing the pleadings shall serve the opposing parties with a copy thereof and its supporting documents in the manner provided for in these Rules with proof of service thereof.


SECTION 6. SERVICE OF NOTICES AND RESOLUTIONS.



a) Notices or summons and copies of orders, shall be served on the parties to the case personally by the Bailiff or duly authorized public officer within three (3) days from receipt thereof or by registered mail; Provided that in special circumstances, service of summons may be effected in accordance with the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court; Provided further, that in cases of decisions and final awards, copies thereof shall be served on both parties and their counsel or representative by registered mail; Provided further that in cases where a party to a case or his counsel on record personally seeks service of the decision upon inquiry thereon, service to said party shall be deemed effected upon actual receipt thereof; Provided finally, that where parties are so numerous, service shall be made on counsel and upon such number of complainants, as may be practicable, which shall be considered substantial compliance with Article 224 (a) of the Labor Code, as amended.


For purposes of appeal, the period shall be counted from receipt of such decisions, resolutions, or orders by the counsel or representative of record.


b) The Bailiff or officer serving the notice, order, resolution or decision shall submit his return within two (2) days from date of service thereof, stating legibly in his return his name, the names of the persons served and the date of receipt, which return shall be immediately attached and shall form part of the records of the case.



In case of service by registered mail, the bailliff or officer shall write in the return, the names of persons served and the date of mailing of the resolution or decision.



If no service was effected, the service officer shall state the reason therefor in the return.
SECTION 7. PROOF AND COMPLETE-NESS OF SERVICE.



The return is prima facie proof of the facts indicated therein. Service by registered mail is complete upon receipt by the addressee or his agent; but if the addressee fails to claim his mail from the post office within five (5) days from the date of first notice of the postmaster, service shall take effect after such time.


SECTION 8. APPEARANCES.



a) A lawyer appearing for a party is presumed to be properly authorized for that purpose.

In every case, he shall indicate in his pleadings and motions his Attorney’s Roll Number, as well as his PTR and IBP numbers for the current year.


b) A non-lawyer may appear as counsel in any of the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter or Commission only under the following conditions:


(1) he represents himself as party to the case;


(2) he represents a legitimate labor organization, as defined under Article 212 and 242 of the Labor Code, as amended, which is a party to the case: Provided, that he presents: (i) a certification from the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) or Regional Office of the Department of Labor and Employment attesting that the organization he represents is duly registered and listed in the roster of legitimate labor organi-zations; (ii) a verified certification issued by the secretary and attested to by the president of the said organization stating that he is authorized to represent the said organization in the said case; and (iii) a copy of the resolution of the board of directors of the said organization granting him such authority;


(3) he represents a member or members of a legitimate labor organization that is existing within the employer’s establishment, who are parties to the case: Provided, that the presents: (i) a verified certification attesting that he is authorized by such member or members to represent them in the case; and (ii) a verified certification issued by the secretary and attested to by the president of the said organization stating that the person or persons he is representing are members of their organization which is existing in the employer’s establishment;


(4) he is duly-accredited member of any legal aid office recognized by the Department of Justice or Integrated Bar of the Philippines: Provided, that he (i) presents proof of his accreditation; and (ii) represents a party to the case;


(5) he is the owner or president of a corporation or establishment which is a party to the case: Provided, that he presents: (i) a verified certifi-cation attesting that he is authorized to represent said corporation or establishment; and (ii) a copy of the resolution of the board of directors of said corporation, or other similar resolution or instrument issued by said establishment, granting him such authority.


c) A non-lawyer who appears in contravention of this section shall not be recognized in any proceedings before the Labor Arbiter or the Commission.


d) Appearances may be made orally or in writing. In both cases, the complete name and office address of both parties shall be made on record and the adverse party or his counsel or representative properly notified.


e) Any change in the address of counsel or representative should be filed with the records of the

case and furnished the adverse party or counsel.


f) Any change or withdrawal of counsel or representative shall be made in accordance with the



Rules of Court.


SECTION 9.



AUTHORITY TO BIND PARTY. - Attorneys and other repre-sentatives of parties shall have authority to bind their clients in all matters of procedure; but they cannot, without a special power of attorney or express consent, enter into a compromise agreement with the opposing party in full or partial discharge of a client’s claim.

RULE IV


VENUE, ASSIGNMENT AND DISPOSITION OF CASES

SECTION 1. VENUE. - a) All cases which Labor Arbiters have authority to hear and decide may be filed in the Regional Arbitration Branch having jurisdiction over the workplace of the complainant or petitioner.


For purposes of venue, the workplace shall be understood as the place or locality where the employee is regularly assigned at the time the cause of action arose. It shall include the place where the employee is supposed to report back after a temporary detail, assignment, or travel. In case of field employees, as well as ambulant or itinerant workers, their workplace is where they are regularly assigned, or where they are supposed to regularly receive their salaries and wages or work instructions from, and report the results of their assignment to, their employers.


b) Where two (2) or more Regional Arbitration Branches have jurisdiction over the workplace of the complainant or petitioner, the Branch that first acquired jurisdiction over the case shall exclude the others.


c) When venue is not objected to before the filing of position papers such issue shall be deemed waived.


d) The venue of an action may be changed or transferred to a different Regional Arbitration Branch other than where the complaint was filed by written agreement of the parties or when the Commission or Labor Arbiter before whom the case is pending so orders, upon motion by the proper party in meritorious cases.


e) Cases involving overseas Filipino workers may be filed before the Regional Arbitration Branch having jurisdiction over the place where the complainant resides or where the principal office of any of the respondents is situated, at the option of the complainant.


SECTION 2. RAFFLE AND ASSIGN-MENT OF CASES. -



a) All complaints and petitions filed with the docket unit of the Regional Arbitration Branch shall be immediately raffled and assigned to a Labor Arbiter from receipt thereof.


(b) The Executive Labor Arbiter shall be responsible for the immediate raffle and assignment of all complaints and petitions filed with his Regional Arbitration Branch, and the immediate forwarding of all subsequent pleadings and motions.


c) All pleadings and motions subsequent to the filing of the complaint shall be forwarded to the Labor Arbiter before whom the case is pending within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt thereof.


SECTION 3. CONSOLIDATION OF CASES AND COMPLAINTS. - Where there are two or more cases or complaints pending before different Labor Arbiters in the same Regional Arbitration Branch involving the same employer and common principal causes of action, or the same parties with different causes of action, the subsequent cases or complaints shall be consolidated with the first to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. Such consolidated cases or complaints shall be disposed of by the Labor Arbiter to whom the first case was assigned.
In case of objection to the consolidation, the same shall be resolved by the Executive Labor Arbiter. An order resolving a motion or objection to consolidation shall be inappealable.


SECTION 4. DISPOSITION OF CASES. - Subject to the provisions of Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code, as amended, when a case is assigned to a Labor Arbiter, the entire case and any or all incidents thereto shall be considered assigned to him; and the same shall be disposed of in the same proceedings to avoid multiplicity of suits or proceedings.


When the Secretary of Labor and Employment has assumed jurisdiction over a strike or lockout or certified the same to the Commission, the parties to such dispute shall immediately inform the Secretary or the Commission, as the case may be, of all cases directly related to the dispute between them pending before any Regional Arbitration Branch, and the Labor Arbiters handling the same of such assumption or certification.



The Labor Arbiter concerned shall forward within two (2) days from notice the entire records of the case to the Commission or to the Secretary of Labor, as the case may be, for proper disposition.

RULE V


PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LABOR
ARBITERS

SECTION 1. JURISDICTION OF LABOR ARBITERS. - Labor Arbiters shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases involving all workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural:


a) Unfair labor practice cases;


b) Termination disputes;


c) If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that workers may file involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment;


d) Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from employer-employee relations;


e) Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of the Labor Code, as amended, including questions involving the legality of strikes and lockouts;


f) Except claims for employees compen-sation not included in the next succeeding paragraph, social security, medicare, and maternity benefits, all other claims arising from employer-employee relations, inclu-ding those of persons in domestic or household service, involving an amount exceeding Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00), whether or not accompanied with a claim for reinstatement;


g) Money claims arising out of employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract, involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment, including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages;




h) Wage distortion disputes in unorganized establishments not voluntarily settled by the parties pursuant to Republic Act No. 6727;


i) Enforcement of compromise agree-ments when there is non-compliance by any of the parties pursuant to Article 227 of the Labor Code, as amended; and


j) Other cases as may be provided by law.
Cases arising from the interpretation or implementation of collective bargaining agreements and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies shall be disposed of by the Labor Arbiter by referring the same to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration, as may be provided in said agreements.


SECTION 2. NATURE OF PROCEE-DINGS. - The proceedings before the Labor Arbiter shall be non-litigious in nature. Subject to the requirements of due process, the technicalities of law and procedure and the rules obtaining in the courts of law shall not strictly apply thereto. The Labor Arbiter may avail himself of all reasonable means to ascertain the facts of the controversy speedily, including ocular inspection and examination of well-informed persons.


SECTION 3. MANDATORY CONCILIA-TION AND MEDIATION CONFERENCE. - a) The mandatory conciliation and mediation conference shall be called for the purpose of (1) amicably settling the case upon a fair compromise; (2) determining the real parties in interest; (3) determining the necessity of amending the complaint and including all causes of action; (4) defining and simplifying the issues in the case; (5) entering into admissions or stipulations of facts; and (6) threshing out all other preliminary matters. The Labor Arbiter shall preside and take full control of the proceedings.


b) Conciliation and mediation efforts shall be exerted by the Labor Arbiters all throughout the proceedings. Should the parties arrive at any agreement as to the whole or any part of the dispute, the same shall be reduced to writing and signed by the parties and their respective counsel or authorized representative, if any, before the Labor Arbiter.


c) In any case, the compromise agreement shall be approved by the Labor Arbiter, if after explaining to the parties, particularly to the complainants, the terms, conditions and consequences thereof, he is satisfied that they understand the agreement, that the same was entered into freely and voluntarily by them, and that it is not contrary to law, morals, and public policy.


d) A compromise agreement duly entered into in accordance with this Section shall be final and binding upon the parties and shall have the force and effect of a judgment rendered by the Labor Arbiter.


e) The mandatory conciliation and mediation conference shall, except for justifiable grounds, be terminated within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of the first conference.
f) No motion for postponement shall be entertained except on meritorious grounds.


SECTION 4. EFFECT OF FAILURE OF CONCILIATION AND MEDIATION. - Should the parties fail to agree upon an amicable settlement, either in whole or in part, during the mandatory conciliation and mediation conference, the Labor Arbiter shall terminate the conciliation and mediation stage and proceed to pursue the

other purposes of the said conference as enumerated in the immediately preceding section. Thereafter, the Labor Arbiter shall direct the parties to simultaneously file their respective position papers on the issues agreed upon by the parties and as reflected in the minutes of the proceedings.


SECTION 5. NON-APPEARANCE OF PARTIES. - The non-appearance of the complainant or petitioner during the two (2) settings for mandatory conciliation and mediation conference scheduled in the summons, despite due notice thereof, shall be a ground for the dismissal of the case without prejudice.


In case of non-appearance by the respondent during the first scheduled conference, the second conference shall proceed as scheduled in the summons. If the respondent still fails to appear at the second conference despite being duly served with summons, the Labor Arbiter shall immediately terminate the mandatory conciliation and mediation conference. The Labor Arbiter shall thereafter allow the complainant petitioner to file his verified position paper and submit evidence in support of his causes of action, and thereupon render his decision on the basis of the evidence on record.


SECTION 6. MOTION TO DISMISS. - On or before the date set for the mandatory conciliation and mediation conference, the respondent may file a motion to dismiss. Any motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or that the cause of action is barred by prior judgment, prescription, or forum shopping, shall be immediately resolved by the Labor Arbiter through a written order. An order denying the motion to dismiss, or suspending its resolution until the final determination of the case, is not appealable.


SECTION 7. SUBMISSION OF POSI-TION PAPER AND REPLY.



a) Subject to Sections 4 and 5 of this Rule, the Labor Arbiter shall direct the parties to submit simultaneously their verified position papers with supporting documents and affidavits, if any, within an inextendible period of ten (10) calendar days from the date of termination of the mandatory conciliation and mediation conference.


b) The position papers of the parties shall cover only those claims and causes of action raised in the complaint or amended complaint, excluding those that may have been amicably settled, and accompanied by all supporting documents, including the affidavits of witnesses, which shall take the place of their direct testimony.


c) A reply may be filed by any party within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the position paper of the adverse party.


d) In their position papers and replies, the parties shall not be allowed to allege facts, or present evidence to prove facts and any cause or causes of action not referred to or included in the original or amended complaint or petition.


SECTION 8. DETERMINATION OF NECESSITY OF HEARING OR CLARIFI-CATORY CONFERENCE. - Immediately after the submission by the parties of their position paper or

reply, as the case may be, the Labor Arbiter shall, motu proprio, determine whether there is a need for a hearing or clarificatory conference. At this stage, he may, at his discretion and for the purpose of making such determination, ask clarificatory questions to further elicit facts or information, including but not limited to the subpoena of relevant documentary evidence, if any, from any party or witness.


SECTION 9. ROLE OF THE LABOR ARBITER IN HEARING AND CLARIFI-CATORY CONFERENCE.



a) The Labor Arbiter shall take full control and personally conduct the hearing or clarificatory conference. Unless otherwise provided by law, the Labor Arbiter shall determine the order of presentation of evidence by the parties, subject to the requirements of due process. He shall examine the parties and their witnesses with respect to the matters at issue; and ask questions only for the purpose of clarifying points of law or fact involved in the case. He shall limit the presentation of evidence to matters relevant to the issue before him and necessary for a just and speedy disposition of the case.


b) In the cross-examination of witnesses, only relevant, pertinent and material questions necessary to enlighten the Labor Arbiter shall be allowed.


c) The Labor Arbiter shall make a written summary of the proceedings, including the substance of the evidence presented, in consultation with the parties. The written summary shall be signed by the parties and shall form part of the records.


SECTION 10. NON-APPEARANCE OF PARTIES, AND POSTPONEMENT OF HEARINGS CLARIFICATORY CONFE-RENCES.



a) Non-appearance at a hearing or clarificatory

conference by the complainant or petitioner, who was duly notified thereof, may be sufficient cause to dismiss the case without prejudice. Subject to Section 16 of this Rule, where proper justification is shown by proper motion to warrant the re-opening of the case, the Labor Arbiter shall call another hearing or clarificatory conference and continue the proceedings until the case is finally decided. The dismissal of the case for the second time due to the unjustified non-appearance of the complainant or petitioner, who was duly notified of the clarificatory hearing, shall be with prejudice.


b) In case the respondent fails to appear during the hearing or clarificatory conference despite due notice thereof, the complainant shall be allowed to present evidence ex-parte, without prejudice to cross-examination at the next hearing or conference. Two (2) successive non-appearances by the respondent during his scheduled presentation of evidence or opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, despite due notice thereof, shall be construed as a waiver on his part to present evidence or conduct cross-examination.


c) The parties and their counsels appearing before the Labor Arbiter shall be prepared for continues hearing or clarificatory conference. No postponement or continuance shall be allowed by the Labor Arbiter, except upon meritorious grounds and subject always to the requirement of expeditious disposition of cases. In any case, the hearing or clarificatory conference shall be terminated within ninety (90) calendar days from the date of the initial hearing or conference.


d) Paragraph (c) of this Section notwithstanding, in cases involving overseas Filipino workers, the aggregate period for conducting the mandatory conciliation and mediation conference, including hearing on the merits or clarificatory conference, shall not exceed sixty (60) days, which shall be reckoned from the date of acquisition of jurisdiction by the Labor Arbiter over the person of the respondents.


SECTION 11. SUBMISSION OF THE CASE FOR DECISION. - Upon the submission by the parties of their position papers of replies, or the lapse of the period to submit the same, the case shall be deemed submitted for decision unless the Labor Arbiter calls for a hearing or clarificatory conference in accordance with Section 8 of this Rule, in which case, notice of hearing or clarificatory conference shall be immediately sent to the parties. Upon termination of the said hearing or conference, the case shall be deemed submitted for decision.

SECTION 12. INHIBITION. - A Labor Arbiter may voluntarily inhibit himself from the resolution of a case and shall so state in writing the legal justifications therefor.



Upon motion of a party, either on the ground of relationship within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity with the adverse party or counsel, or on question of impartiality, the Labor Arbiter may inhibit himself from further hearing and deciding the case. Such motion shall be resolved within five (5) days from the filing thereof.



An order denying or granting a motion for inhibition is inappealable.


SECTION 13. PERIOD TO DECIDE CASE. - The Labor Arbiter shall render his decision within thirty (30) calendar days, without extension, after the submission of the case by the parties for decision, even in the absence of stenographic notes; Provided however, that cases involving overseas Filipino workers shall be decided within ninety (90) calendar days after the filing of the complaint which shall commence to run upon acquisition by the Labor Arbiter of jurisdiction over the respondents.


SECTION 14. CONTENTS OF DECISIONS. - The decisions and orders of the Labor Arbiter shall be clear and concise and shall include a brief statement of the: a) facts of the case; b) issues involved; c) applicable laws or rules; d) conclusions and the reasons therefor; and e) specific remedy or relief granted. In cases involving monetary awards, the decisions or orders of the Labor Arbiter shall contain the amount awarded.


In case the decision of the Labor Arbiter includes an order of reinstatement, it shall likewise contain: a) a statement that the reinstatement aspect is immediately executory; and b) a directive for the employer to submit a report of compliance within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the said decision.


SECTION 15. MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND PETITIONS FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT. - No motions for reconsideration or petitions for relief from judgment of any decision, resolution or order of a Labor Arbiter shall be allowed. However, when one such motion for reconsideration is filed, it shall be treated as an appeal provided that it complies with the requirements for perfecting an appeal. In the case of a petition for relief from judgment, the Labor Arbiter shall elevate the case to the Commission for disposition.


SECTION 16. REVIVAL AND RE-OPENING OR RE-FILING OF DISMISSED CASE. - A party may file a motion to revive or re-open a case dismissed without prejudice, within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of notice of the order dismissing the same; otherwise, his only remedy shall be to re-file the case in the arbitration branch of origin.

RULE VI
APPEALS

SECTION 1. PERIODS OF APPEAL. - Decisions, resolutions or orders of the Labor Arbiter shall be final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt thereof; and in case of decisions, resolutions or orders of the Regional Director of the Department of Labor and Employment pursuant to Article 129 of the Labor Code, within five (5) calendar days from receipt thereof. If the 10th or 5th day, as the case may be, falls on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, the last day to perfect the appeal shall be the first working day following such Saturday, Sunday or holiday.


No motion or request for extension of the period within which to perfect an appeal shall be allowed.


SECTION 2. GROUNDS. - The appeal may be entertained only on any of the following grounds:


a) If there is prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion on the part of the Labor Arbiter or Regional Director;


b) If the decision, resolution or order was secured through fraud or coercion, including graft and corruption;


c) If made purely on questions of law; and/or


d) If serious errors in the findings of facts are raised which, if not corrected, would cause grave

or irreparable damage or injury to the appellant.


SECTION 3. WHERE FILED. - The appeal shall be filed with the regional Arbitration Branch or Regional Office where the case was heard and decided.


SECTION 4. REQUISITES FOR PERFECTION OF APPEAL. - a) The appeal shall be: 1) filed within the reglementary period provided in Section 1 of this Rule; 2) verified by the appellant himself in accordance with Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, as amended, 3) in the form of a memorandum of appeal which shall state the grounds relied upon and the arguments in support thereof, the relief prayed for, and with a statement of the date the appellant received the appealed decision, resolution or order; 4) in three (3) legibly typewritten or printed copies; and

5) accompanied by i) proof of payment of the required appeal fee; ii) posting of a cash or surety bond as provided in Section 6 of this Rule; iii) a certificate of non-forum shopping; and iv) proof of service upon the other parties.


b) A mere notice of appeal without complying with the other requisites aforestated shall not stop the running of the period for perfecting an appeal.


c) The appellee may file with the Regional Arbitration Branch or Regional Office where the appeal was filed, his answer or reply to appellant’s memorandum of appeal, not later than ten (10) calendar days from receipt thereof. Failure on the part of the appellee who was properly furnished with a copy of the appeal to file his answer or reply within the said period may be construed as a waiver on his part to file the same.


d) Subject to the provisions of Article 218 of the Labor Code, one the appeal is perfected in accordance with these Rules, the Commission shall limit itself to reviewing and deciding only the specific issues that were elevated on appeal.


SECTION 5. APPEAL FEE. - The appellant shall pay an appeal fee of One Hundred Fifty Pesos (P150.00) to the Regional Arbitration Branch or Regional Office of origin, and the official receipt of such payment shall form part of the records of the case.


SECTION 6. BOND. - In case the decision of the Labor Arbiter or the Regional Director involves a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a bond, which shall either be in the form of cash deposit or surety bond equivalent in amount to the monetary award, exclusive of damages and attorney’s fees.


In case of surety bond, the same shall be issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Commission or the Supreme Court, and shall be accompanied by original or certified true copies of the following:


a) a joint declaration under oath by the employer, his counsel, and the bonding company, attesting that the bond posted is genuine, and shall be in effect until final disposition of the case.

b) an indemnity agreement between the employer-appellant and bonding company;


c) proof of security deposit or collateral securing the bond: provided, that a check shall not be considered as an acceptable security;


d) a certificate of authority from the Insurance Commission;


e) certificate of registration from the Securities and Exchange Commis-sion;


f) certificate of authority to transact surety business from the Office of the President;
g) certificate of accreditation and authority from the Supreme Court; and


h) notarized board resolution or secretary’s certificate from the bonding company showing its authorized signatories and their specimen signatures.


A cash or surety bond shall be valid and effective from the date of deposit or posting, until the case is finally decided, resolved or terminated, or the award satisfied. This condition shall be deemed incorporated in the terms and conditions of the surety bond, and shall be binding on the appellants and the bonding company.


The appellant shall furnish the appellee with a certified true copy of the said surety bond with all the above-mentioned supporting documents. The appellee shall verify the regularity and genuineness thereof and immediately report any irregularity to the Commission.
Upon verification by the Commission that the bond is irregular or not genuine, the Commission shall cause the immediate dismissal of the appeal, and censure or cite in contempt the responsible parties and their counsels, or subject them to reasonable fine or penalty.
No motion to reduce bond shall be entertained except on meritorious grounds, and only upon the posting of a bond in a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award.


The mere filing of a motion to reduce bond without complying with the requisites in the preceding paragraphs shall not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal.


SECTION 7. RECORDS OF CASE ON APPEAL. - The records of a case shall have a corresponding index of its contents which shall include the following: a) the original copy of the complaint; b) other pleadings and motions; c) minutes of the proceedings, notices, transcripts of stenographic notes, if any; d) decisions, orders, and resolutions as well as proof of service thereof, if available; e) the computation of the award; f) memorandum of appeal and the reply or answer thereto, if any, and proof of service, if available; g) official receipt of the appeal fee; and h) the

appeal bond, if any.


The records shall be chronologically arranged and paged prominently.


SECTION 8. TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS OF CASE ON APPEAL. - Within forty-eight (48)

hours after the filing of the appeal, the records of the case shall be transmitted by the Regional Arbitration Branch or office of origin to the Commission.


SECTION 9. PERFECTION OF APPEAL; EFFECT. - Without prejudice to immediate reinstatement pending appeal under Section 6 of Rule XI, once an appeal is filed, the Labor Arbiter loses jurisdiction over the case. All pleadings and motions pertaining to the appealed case shall thereafter be addressed to and filed with the Commission.


SECTION 10. FRIVOLOUS OR DILA-TORY APPEALS. - No appeal from an interlocutory order shall be entertained. To discourage frivolous or dilatory appeals, including those taken from interlocutory orders, the Commission may censure or cite in contempt the erring parties and their counsels, or subject them to reasonable fine or penalty.


SECTION 11. APPEALS FROM DECISION OF OTHER AGENCIES. - The Rules provided

herein governing appeals from the decisions or orders of Labor Arbiters shall apply to appeals to the Commission from decisions or orders of the other offices or agencies appealable to the Commission according to law.

RULE VII


PROCEEDINGS BEFORE
THE COMMISSION

SECTION 1. JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION.



The Commission shall exercise exclusive, original, and appellate jurisdiction in accordance with law.


SECTION 2. COMPOSITION AND INTERNAL FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION EN BANC AND ITS DIVISIONS.

a) Composition. - Unless otherwise provided by law, the Commission shall be composed of the Chairman and of fourteen (14) Commissioners.

b) Commission En Banc. - The Commission shall sit en banc only for purposes of promulgating rules and regulations governing the hearing and disposition of cases before its Divisions and Regional Arbitration Branches, and for the formulation of policies affecting its administration and operations.

It may, on temporary or emergency basis, allow cases within the jurisdiction of any Division to be heard by any other Division whose docket allows the additional workload and such transfer will not expose litigants to unnecessary additional expense.

c) Divisions. - Unless otherwise provided by law, the Commission shall exercise its adjudicatory and all other powers, functions and duties through its five (5) Divisions. Each Division shall consist of one member from the public sector who shall act as the Presiding Commissioner and one member each from the workers and employers sectors, respectively.

Of the five (5) Divisions, the First, Second and Third Divisions shall have exclusive territorial jurisdiction over appealed cases coming from Luzon; Fourth Division, appealed cases from Visayas Region; and the Fifth Division, appealed cases from Mindanao including those from the Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao.

d) Headquarters. - As provided by law, the Commission and its First, Second and Third Divisions shall have their main office in the National Capital Region, and the Fourth and Fifth Divisions in the cities of Cebu and Cagayan de Oro, respectively.

SECTION 3. THE CHAIRMAN. - The Chairman shall preside over all sessions of the Commission en banc. He is the Presiding Commissioner of the First Division. In case of the effective absence or incapacity of the Chairman, the Presiding Commissioner of the Second Division shall be the Acting Chairman.

The Chairman, aided by the Executive Clerk of the Commission, shall have administrative supervision over the Commission and its Regional Arbitration Branches and all its personnel including the Executive Labor Arbiters and Labor Arbiters.

SECTION 4. COMMISSION EN BANC SESSION, QUORUM AND VOTE.

a) Commission En Banc. - The Chairman shall call the Commission to an en banc session at least twice a year, preferably on the first week of June and the first week of December, to deliberate and decide on any matter before it. However, a majority of all the members of the Commission may call a special en banc session to discuss and decide on urgent and vital matters which need immediate action.

b) Quorum. - The presence of a majority of all the members of the Commission shall be necessary to constitute a quorum. The vote or concurrence of the majority of the members constituting a quorum shall be the decision or resolution of the Commission en banc.

c) Division. - The presence of at least two (2) Commissioners of a Division shall constitute a quorum. The concurrence of two (2) Commissioners of a Division shall be necessary for the pronouncement of a judgment or resolution.

Whenever the required membership in a Division is not complete and the concurrence of two (2) Commissioners to arrive at a judgment or resolution cannot be obtained, the Chairman shall designate such number of additional Commissioners from the other Divisions as may be necessary from the same sector.

d) Role of Chairman in the Division. - The Chairman of the Commission may convene and preside over the session of any Division to consider any case pending before it and participate in its deliberations, if in his judgment, his presence therein will best serve the interests of labor justice. He shall not however, participate in the voting by the Division, except when he is acting as Presiding Commissioner of the Division in the absence of the regular Presiding Commissioner.

SECTION 5. CONSULTATION. - The conclusions of a Division on any case or matter submitted to it for decision shall be reached in consultation before the case is assigned to a member for the writing of the opinion. It shall be mandatory for the Division to meet for the purpose of the consultation ordained herein.

A certification to this effect singed by the presiding Commissioner of the Division shall be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case and served upon the parties.

SECTION 6. DISSENTING OPINION. - Should any member of a Division indicate his intention to write a dissenting opinion, he may file the same within the period prescribed for deciding or resolving the appeal; otherwise, such written dissenting opinion shall not be considered part of the records of the case.

SECTION 7. INHIBITION. - No motion to inhibit the entire Division of the Commission shall be
entertained. However, any Commissioner may inhibit himself from the consideration and resolution of any case or matter before the Division and shall so state in writing the legal or justifiable grounds therefor.

In the event that a member inhibits himself, the case shall be raffled by the Executive Clerk or Deputy Executive Clerk to either of the two (2) remaining Commissioners. In case two (2) Commissioners in a Division inhibit themselves in a case or matter before it, the Chairman shall, as far as practicable, appoint two (2) Commissioners from other Divisions representing the sector of the Commis-sioners who inhibited themselves.

SECTION 8. ABSTENTION. - In the event of an abstention, and the concurrence of two (2) Commissioners to arrive at a judgment or resolution cannot be obtained, Section 4 (c), second paragraph, of this Rule shall apply.

SECTION 9. CONSOLIDATION OF CASES. - Appealed and injunction cases involving the same parties, issues, or related questions of fact or law shall be consolidated before the Commissioner to whom the case with the lowest case number is assigned. Notice of the consolidation shall be given by the Executive Clerk or Deputy Executive Clerk to the other members of the concerned
Divisions.

SECTION 10. TECHNICAL RULES NOT BINDING. - The rules of procedure and evidence prevailing in courts of law and equity shall not be controlling and the Commission shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process.

In any proceeding before the Commis-sion, the parties may be represented by legal counsel but it shall be the duty of the Chairman, any Presiding Commissioner or Commissioner to exercise complete control of the proceedings at all stages.

SECTION 11. CONCILIATION AND MEDIATION. - In the exercise of its exclusive, original and
appellate jurisdiction, the Commission may exert all efforts towards the amicable settlement of a labor dispute.

The settlement of cases on appeal, to be valid and binding between the parties, shall be made before the Commissioner or his authorized representative.

SECTION 12. ROLE OF THE LABOR ARBITER ASSIGNED TO THE COMMIS-SION. - In the resolution of cases on appeal, and those mentioned in Rules VIII and X, the Commission shall be assisted by a Labor Arbiter who may be directed to study, review, hear and receive evidence, and submit reports thereon.

SECTION 13. FORM OF DECISION, RESOLUTION AND ORDER. - The decision, resolution and order of the Commission shall state clearly and distinctly the findings of facts, issues, and conclusions of law on which it is based, and the relief granted, if any. If the decision, resolution or order involves monetary awards, the same shall contain the specific amount awarded as of the date the decision is rendered.

SECTION 14. FINALITY OF DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AND ENTRY OF

JUDGMENT.

a) Finality of the Decisions, Resolutions or Orders of the Commission. - Except as provided in Section 9 of Rule X, the decisions, resolutions or orders of the Commission shall become final and executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt thereof by the parties.

b) Entry of Judgment. - Upon the expiration of the ten (10) calendar day period provided in paragraph (a) of this Section, the decision, resolution, or order shall be entered in a book of entries of judgement.
The Executive Clerk or Deputy Executive Clerk shall consider the decision, resolution or order as final and execu- tory after sixty (60) calendar days from date of mailing in the absence of return cards, certifications from the post office, or other proof of service to parties.

SECTION 15. MOTIONS FOR RECON-SIDERATION. - Motion for reconsideration of any decision, resolution or order of the Commission shall not be entertained except when based on palpable or patent errors; provided that the motion is under oath and filed within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of decision, resolution or order, with proof of service that a copy of the same has been furnished, within the reglementary period, the adverse party; and provided further, that only one such motion from the same party shall be entertained.
Should a motion for reconsideration be entertained pursuant to this Section, the resolution shall be executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt thereof.

RULE VIII

CERTIFIED CASES

SECTION 1. POLICY. - It is the declared policy of certification of labor disputes for compulsory arbitration to ensure and maintain industrial peace based on social justice and national interest by having a full, complete and immediate settlement or adjudication of all labor disputes between the parties, as well as issues that are relevant to or incidents of the certified issues.

SECTION 2. CERTIFIED LABOR DISPUTES. - Certified labor disputes are cases certified to the Commission for compulsory arbitration under Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code.

SECTION 3. EFFECTS OF CERTIFI-CATION.

a) Upon certification, the intended or impending strike or lockout is automatically enjoined, notwithstanding the filing of any motion for reconsideration of the certification order nor the non-resolution of any such motion which may have been duly submitted to the Office of the Secretary of Labor and Employment.

If a work stoppage has already taken place at the time of the certification, all striking or locked out employees shall immediately return to work and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout.

b) All cases between the same parties, except where the certification order specifies otherwise the issues submitted for arbitration which are already filed or may be filed, and are relevant to or are proper incidents of the certified case, shall be considered subsumed or absorbed by the certified case, and shall be decided by the appropriate Division of the Commission.
Subject to the second paragraph of Section 4 of Rule IV, the parties to a certified case, under pain of contempt, shall inform their counsels and the Division concerned of all cases pending with the Regional Arbitration Branches and the Voluntary Arbitrators relative or incident to the certified case before it.

c) Whenever a certified labor dispute involves a business entity with several workplaces located in different regions, the Division having territorial jurisdiction over the principal office of the company shall acquire jurisdiction to decide such labor dispute; unless the certification order provides otherwise.

SECTION 4. EFFECTS OF DEFIANCE. - Non-compliance with the certification order of the Secretary of Labor and Employment shall be considered as an illegal act committed in the course of the strike or lockout, and shall authorize the Commission to enforce the same under pain of immediate disciplinary action, including dismissal or loss of employment status or payment by the locking-out employer of backwages, damages and/or other affirmative relief, even criminal prosecution against the liable parties.

The Commission may also seek the assistance of law enforcement agencies to ensure compliance and enforcement of its orders and resolutions.

SECTION 5. Procedure in certi-fied cases. - a) Unless there is a necessity to conduct a clarificatory hearing, the Commssion shall resolve all certified cases within thirty (30) calendar days from receipt by the assigned Commissioner of the complete records, which shall include the position papers of the parties and the order of the Secretary of Labor and Employment denying the motion for reconsideration of the certification order, if such motion has been filed.

b) Where a clarificatory hearing is needed, the Commission shall, within five (5) calendar days from receipt of the records, issue a notice to be served on the parties through the fastest means available, requiring them to appear and submit additional evidence, if any.

c) Notwithstanding the necessity for a clarificatory hearing, all certified cases shall be resolved by the Commission within sixty (60) calendar days from receipt of the complete records.

d) No motion for postponement or extension shall be entertained.

SECTION 6. EXECUTION OF JUDG-MENT IN CERTIFIED CASE. - Upon issuance of the entry
of judgment, the Commission, motu proprio or upon motion by the proper party, may cause the execution of the judgment in the certified case.

RULE IX

CONTEMPT

SECTION 1. DIRECT CONTEMPT. - The Chairman or any Commissioner or Labor Arbiter may summarily adjudge guilty of direct contempt any person committing any act of misbehavior in the presence of or so near the Chairman or any Commissioner or Labor Arbiter as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the same, including disrespect toward said officials, offensive acts toward others, or refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness or to subscribe to an affidavit or deposition when lawfully required to do so.

If the offense is committed against the Commission or any member thereof, the same shall be punished by a fine not exceeding Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) or imprisonment not exceeding five (5) days, or both; and, if the offense is committed against any Labor Arbiter, the same shall be punished by a fine not exceeding One Hundred Pesos (P100.00) or imprisonment not exceeding one (1) day, or both.

Any person adjudged guilty of direct contempt by a Labor Arbiter may, within a period of five (5) calendar days from notice of the judgment, appeal the same to the Commission and the execution of said judgment shall be suspended pending resolution of the appeal upon the filing by said person of a bond on condition that he will abide by and perform the judgment should the appeal be decided against him. A judgment of the Commission on direct contempt shall be immediately executory and inap- pealable.

SECTION 2. INDIRECT CONTEMPT. - The Commission or any Labor Arbiter may, in accordance with Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, cite any person for indirect contempt and impose the appropriate penalty under any of the following grounds:

a) Misbehavior of any officer or employee in the performance of his official duties or in his official
transaction;

b) Disobedience of, or resistance to, a lawful writ, order or decision;

c) Any abuse of, or any unlawful interference with the processes or proceedings not constituting direct contempt;

d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct or degrade the adminis-tration of justice;

e) Assuming to be an attorney or a representative of party without authority;

f) Failure to obey a subpoena duly served; or

g) Other grounds analogous to the foregoing.
The same procedure provided in the second paragraph of Section 1 of this Rule shall govern any person adjudged guilty of indirect contempt.


RULE X

INJUNCTION

SECTION 1. INJUNCTION IN ORDI-NARY LABOR DISPUTES. - A preliminary injunction or restraining order may be granted by the Commission through its Divisions pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (e) of Article 218 of the Labor Code, as amended, when it is established on the basis of the sworn allegations in the petition that the acts complained of involving or arising from any labor dispute before the Commission, which, if not restrained or performed forthwith, may cause grave or irreparable damage to any party or render ineffectual any decision in favor of such party.

A certification of non-forum shopping shall accompany the petition for injunction.
The writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order shall become effective only upon posting of the required cash bond in the amount to be determined by the Commission to answer for any damage that may be suffered by the party enjoined, if it is finally determined
that the petitioner is not entitled thereto.

SECTION 2. INJUNCTION IN STRIKES OR LOCKOUTS. - A preliminary or permanent injunction may be granted by the Commission only after hearing the testimony of witnesses and with opportunity for cross-examination in support of the allegations of the complaint or petition made under oath, and testimony by way of opposition thereto, if offered, and only after a finding of fact by the Commission:

a) That prohibited or unlawful acts have been threatened and will be committed and will be continued unless restrained, but no injunction or temporary restraining order shall be issued on account of any threat, prohibited or unlawful act, except against the person or persons, association or organization making the threat or committing the prohibited or unlawful act or actually authorizing or ratifying the same after actual knowledge thereof.

b) That substantial and irreparable injury to petitioner’s property will follow;

c) That as to each item of relief to be granted, greater injury will be inflicted upon the petitioner
by the denial or relief than will be inflicted upon respondents by the granting of relief;

d) That petitioner has no adequate remedy at law; and

e) That the public officers charged with the duty to protect petitioner’s property are unable or unwilling to furnish adequate protection.

SECTION 3. HEARING; NOTICE THEREOF. - Hearings shall be held after due and personal notice thereof has been served, in such manner as the Commissioner shall direct, to all known persons against whom relief is sought, and also to the Chief Executive and other public officials of the province or city within which the unlawful acts have been threatened or committed charged with the duty to protect petitioner’s property.

SECTION 4. RECEPTION OF EVI-DENCE; DELEGATION. - The reception of evidence for the application of a writ of injunction may be delegated by the Commission to any of its Labor Arbiters who shall conduct such hearings in such places as he may determine to be accessible to the parties and their witnesses, and shall thereafter submit his report and recommendation to the Commission within fifteen (15) days from such delegation.

SECTION 5. OCULAR INSPECTION. - The Chairman, any Commissioner, Labor Arbiter or
their duly authorized representatives, may, at any time during working hours, conduct an ocular inspection on any establishment, building, ship or vessel, place or premises, including any work, material, implement, machinery, appliance or any object therein, and ask any employee, laborer, or any person, as the case may be, for any information or data concerning any matter or question relative to the object of the petition.
The ocular inspection reports shall be submitted to the appropriate Division within twenty-four (24) hours from the conduct thereof.

SECTION 6. TEMPORARY RESTRAIN-ING ORDER; REQUISITES. - If the petitioner shall also allege that, unless a temporary restraining order shall be issued without notice, a substantial and irreparable injury to petitioner’s property will be unavoidable, such a temporary restraining order may be issued upon testimony under oath, or by affidavits of the petitioner’s witnesses, sufficient, if sustained, to justify the Commission in the issuance thereof.

SECTION 7. CASH BOND. - No temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction
shall be issued except on the condition that petitioner shall first file an undertaking to answer for the damages and post a cash bond in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), or such higher amount as may be determined by the Commission, to recompense those enjoined for any loss, expense or damage caused by the improvident or erroneous issuance of such order or injunction, including all reasonable costs, together with a reasonable attorney’s fee, and expense of defense against the order or against the granting of any injunctive relief sought in the same proceeding and subsequently denied by the Commission.

SECTION 8. EFFECTIVITY OF TEMPO-RARY RESTRAINING ORDER. - A temporary restraining order shall be effective for no longer than twenty (20) days reckoned from the posting of the cash bond required under the preceding Section. During the said period, the parties shall be required to present evidence to substantiate their respective positions in the main petition.

SECTION 9. EFFECTS OF DEFIANCE. - The order or resolution enjoining the performance of
illegal acts shall be immediately executory in accordance with the terms thereof. In case of non-compliance, the Commission shall impose such sanctions, and shall issue such orders, as may be necessary to implement the said order or resolution, including the enlistment of law enforcement agencies having jurisdiction over the area for the purpose of enforcing the same.

SECTION 10. ORDINARY REMEDY IN LAW OR IN EQUITY. - Nothing in this Rule shall deprive any party having a claim or cause of action under or upon such undertaking from electing to pursue his ordinary remedy by suit at law or in equity.

RULE XI

EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS

SECTION 1. EXECUTION UPON FINALITY OF DECISION OR ORDER.

a) A writ of execution may be issued motu proprio or on motion, upon a decision or order that finally disposes of the action or proceedings after the parties and their counsels or authorized representatives are furnished with copies of the decision or order in accordance with these Rules, but only after the expiration of the period to appeal if no appeal has been filed, as shown by the certificate of finality.

If an appeal has been filed, a writ of execution may be issued when there is an entry of judgment as provided for in Section 14 of Rule VII.

b) No motion for execution shall be entertained nor a writ of execution be issued unless the Labor Arbiter or the Commission is in possession of the records of the case which shall include an entry of judgment if the case was appealed; except that, as provided for in Section 14 of Rule V and Section 6 of this Rule, and in those cases where partial execution is allowed by law, the Labor Arbiter shall retaine duplicate original copies of the decision to be implemented and proof of service thereof for the purpose of immediate enforcement.

SECTION 2. PRE-EXECUTION CONFE-RENCE. - Within two (2) working days from receipt of a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution, and subject to Section 1, paragraph (b) of this Rule, the Labor Arbiter shall schedule a pre-execution conference or hearing to thresh out matters relevant to execution, including the computation of the award.

SECTION 3. FORM AND CONTENTS OF A WRIT OF EXECUTION. - The writ of execution must be issued in the name of the Republic of the Philippines signed by the Commission or Labor Arbiter requiring the Sheriff to execute the decision, order, or award of the Commission or Labor Arbiter, and must contain the dispositive portion thereof, the amount, if any, to be demanded, and all lawful fees to be collected from the losing party or any other person required by law to obey the same.

SECTION 4. COMPUTATION DURING EXECUTION. - Where further computation of the
award in the decision, resolution or order is necessary during the course of the execution proceedings, no writ of execution shall be issued until after the computation has been approved by the Labor Arbiter in an order issued after the parties have been duly notified and heard on the matter.

SECTION 5. EXECUTION OF MONE-TARY JUDGMENT.

a) Immediate payment on demand. - The Sheriff shall enforce a monetary judgment by demanding the immediate payment of the
full amount stated in the writ of execution and all lawful fees from the losing party or any other person required by law to obey the same.

b) In the event of failure or refusal of the losing party to pay the judgment award, the Sheriff shall immediately proceed against the cash deposit or surety bond posted by the losing party, if any;

c) If the bonding company refuses to comply with the writ of execution, then its president and officers or authorized representatives shall be cited for contempt, and the bonding company shall be barred from transacting business with the Commission;

d) Should the cash deposit or surety bond be insufficient, or in case the surety bond cannot be
proceeded against for any reason, the Sheriff shall, within five (5) days from demand, execute the monetary judgment by levying on the property, personal and real, of the losing party not exempt from execution, sufficient to cover the judgment award, which may be disposed of for value at a public auction to the highest bidder.

e) Proceeds of execution shall be deposited with the Cashier of the concerned Division or Regional Arbitration Branch, or with an authorized depositary bank. Where payment is made in the form of a check, the same shall be payable to the Commission.

SECTION 6. EXECUTION OF REIN-STATEMENT PENDING APPEAL. - In case the decision includes an order of reinstatement, and the employer disobeys the directive under the second paragraph of Section 14 of Rule V or refuses to reinstate the dismissed employee, the Labor Arbiter shall immediately issue writ of execution, even pending appeal, directing the employer to immediately reinstate the dismissed employee either physically or in the payroll, and to pay the accrued salaries as a consequence of such reinstatement at the rate specified in the decision.
The Sheriff shall serve the writ of execution upon the employer or any other person required by law to obey the same. If he disobeys the writ, such employer or person may be cited for contempt in accordance with Rule IX.

SECTION 7. ENFORCEMENT OF WRIT OF EXECUTION. - In executing a decision, resolution or order, the Sheriff, or other authorized officer acting as Sheriff of the Commission, shall be guided strictly by these Rules, and by the Manual on Execution of Judgement, which shall form part of these Rules. In the absence of applicable rules, the Rules of Court, as amended, shall be applied in a suppletory manner.

SECTION 8. EXECUTORY BY MOTION OR BY INDEPENDENT ACTION. - A decision or order may be executed on motion within five (5) years from the date it becomes final and executory. After the lapse of such period, the judgment shall become dormant, and may only be enforced by an independent action within a period of ten (10) years from date of its finality.

SECTION 9. EFFECT OF PERFECTION OF APPEAL ON EXECUTION. - The perfection of an appeal shall stay the execution of the decision of the Labor Arbiter on Appeal, except execution for reinstatement pending appeal.

SECTION 10. EFFECT OF PETITION FOR CERTIORARI ON EXECUTION. - A petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court shall not stay the execution of the assailed decision unless a restraining order is issued by said courts.

SECTION 11. RESOLUTION OF MOTION TO QUASH. - The mere filing of a motion to quash shall not stay execution proceedings. A motion to quash shall be resolved by the Labor Arbiter within ten (10) working days from submission of said motion for resolution.

SECTION 12. THIRD PARTY CLAIM. - A third party claim shall be filed within five (5) days from the last day of posting or publication of the notice of execution sale; otherwise the claim shall be forever barred. The third party claimant shall execute an affidavit stating his title to the property or right to possession thereof with supporting evidence, and shall file the same with the Sheriff and the Commission or Labor Arbiter who issued the writ of execution.

Upon receipt of the third party claim, all proceedings, with respect to the execution of the property subject of such claim, shall automatically be suspended. The Labor Arbiter who issued the writ may require the third party claimant to adduce additional evidence in support of his third party claim and to post a cash or surety bond equivalent to the amount of his claim, as provided for in Section 6 of Rule VI, without prejudice to the posting by the prevailing party of a supersedeas bond in an amount equivalent to that posted by the third party claimant. The Labor Arbiter shall resolve the propriety of such third party claim within ten (10) working days from submission of said claim for resolution.

SECTION 13. RETURN OF WRIT OF EXECUTION. - The writ of execution shall be returned to the Commission or Labor Arbiter who issued it at anytime, but not within ten (10) days nor beyond one hundred eighty (180) days, after receipt thereof by the Sheriff, who shall set forth in writing the whole proceedings, and file it with the Commission or Labor Arbiter to form part of the records of the case.

SECTION 14. SHERIFF’S REPORT. - The Sheriff enforcing the writ of execution shall submit not later than thirty (30) days from receipt of such writ, and every thirty (30) days thereafter, a report updating the Commission or Labor Arbiter who issued the writ of execution on the status of the enforcement thereof. A copy of the report shall be furnished the Chairman and the Executive Labor Arbiter.

SECTION 15. DESIGNATION OF SPECIAL SHERIFFS AND IMPOSI- TION OF FINES. - The Chairman of the Commission may designate special Sheriffs and take any measure, under existing laws, to ensure compliance with the decisions, resolutions or orders of the Commission and those of Labor Arbiters, including the imposition of administrative fine which shall not be less than Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) nor more than Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00).
Failure on the part of the Sheriff to submit the return or report required under Section 13 and 14 of this Rule within the stated period shall subject him to the above administrative fine, or suspen- sion for fifteen (15) days without pay, or both.

RULE XII

COMMISSION SEAL AND
RECORDS, AND POWERS

AND DUTIES OF COMMISSION OFFICIALS

SECTION 1. SEAL OF THE COMMIS-SION. - The seal of the National Labor Relations Commission shall be of standard size, circular, with the inscription, running from left to right on the upper outside edge, the words “NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION”, and the lower outside edge, the words “REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES”, with a design at the center containing the coat of arms of the Department of Labor and Employ- ment.

SECTION 2. THE EXECUTIVE CLERK. - The Executive Clerk shall assist the Commission when sitting en banc and when acting through the First Division, and shall perform such similar or equivalent functions and duties as are discharged by the Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals.

SECTION 3. DEPUTY EXECUTIVE CLERKS. - The Deputy Executive Clerks for the Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Divisions shall assist the Commission when acting through its Division, and shall perform similar functions and duties as discharged by the Deputy Clerks of Court of the Court of Appeals, and as enume- rated herein as functions of the Executive Clerk relative to their respective Divisions.

SECTION 4. DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE CLERK AND DEPUTY EXECUTIVE CLERKS.

a) Custody of Seal and Books. - He shall keep in his care and custody the Seal of the Commission, together with all the books necessary for the recording of the proceedings of the Commission, including the records, files and exhibits;

b) Filing of Pleadings. - He shall receive and file all cases and pleadings and documents indicating thereon the date and time filed. All pleadings shall be filed in three (3) legibly typewritten copies in legal size;

c) Raffle and Assignment of Cases. - He shall assign appealed cases for study or report strictly by raffle or as directed by the Chairman. In this connection, the raffle of cases for study or report must be attended by the duty designated representative of the Members of the appropriate Division;

d) Service of Processes, Orders and Decisions. - He shall serve parties and counsel processes, notices of hearings, copies of decisions, resolutions or orders issued by the Commission by mail or by personal service and immediately attach the returns thereof to the records;

e) Commission Calendar and Minutes Book. - He shall prepare the Commission or Division calendars of sessions, attend such sessions personally and immediately prepare the minutes thereof. For this purpose, he shall keep a minutes book;

f) General Docket. - The Executive Clerk shall keep a general docket for the Commission, each page of which shall be numbered and prepared for receiving all the entries in a single page, and shall enter therein all original and appealed cases before it, numbered consecutively in the order in which they were received and, under the heading of each case, the date and hour of each pleading filed, of each order, decision or resolution entered, and of each other step or action taken in the case; so that, by reference to any single page, the history of the case may be known;

g) Promulgation and Promulgation Book. - He shall promulgate decisions and final resolutions on the same date the same is filed with his office and indicate the date and time of promulgation and attest the same by his signature on the first page thereof.

He shall immediately furnish the Chairman with a copy of such decision, resolution, or order with a summary of the nature thereof and the issue involved therein. He shall keep a promulgation book which indicates the date and time of promulgation, the case number, title of the case, the ponente, the nature of the decision or final resolution and the action taken by the Commission by quoting the dispositive portion thereof. Notices of said decisions, resolutions or orders shall be sent in sealed envelopes to parties and their counsel within forty-eight (48) hours from promulgation;

h) Entry of Judgment. - He shall keep a book of entries of judgment, decisions, resolutions and orders containing in chronological order the entries of all final decisions, resolutions and orders of the Commission;

i) Disposition and Remand of Records. - Upon entry of judgment, he shall immediately remand the records of the case to the Regional Arbitration Branch of origin, Regional Director or his duly authorized officer, as the case may be. The Records Unit shall immediately post said records without delay within two (2) working days;

j) Monthly Accomplishment Reports. - He shall submit a monthly accomplishment report of the Commission or Division not later than the 7th day of the following month;

k) Other Functions. - He shall perform other functions as directed by the Chairman or the Commission en banc.

SECTION 5. BOARD SECRETARIES. - The Board Secretaries of the Commission shall assist the Executive Clerk or Deputy Executive Clerks in the performance of their duties and functions relative to the Commission or their respective Divisions.

SECTION 6. ISSUANCE OF CERTIFIED COPIES. - Unless otherwise restricted by Section 8 hereof, the Executive Clerk, Deputy Executive Clerks, and the authorized officers of the Regional Arbitration Branches shall prepare, for any person asking for the same, a certified copy, under the Seal of the Commission, of any paper, record, decision, resolution, order or entry by and in his office, proper to be certified, after payment of the standard fees to the Commission duly receipted for; Provided, that a pauper litigant, as defined by law, shall be exempted from paying any fee for certified copies of any document, including transcripts of stenographic notes.

SECTION 7. POWER TO ADMINISTER OATH. - The Chairman, Members of the Commission, the Executive Clerk, the Deputy Executive Clerks, the Executive Labor Arbiters, the Labor Arbiters, and other persons designated or commissioned by the Chairman of the Commission, shall have the power to administer oath on all matters or proceedings related to the performance of their duties.

SECTION 8. ACCESS TO COMMIS-SION RECORDS. - All official records of the Commission shall be open to the public during regular office hours, except those kept by it in the nature of confidential reports, records or communications which cannot be divulged without violating private rights or prejudicing the public interest. Minutes of hearings or sessions may not be divulged until after promulgation of the decision or resolution.

RULE XIII
EFFECTIVITY

SECTION 1. EFFECTIVITY. - These Rules shall take effect fifteen (15) days after publication in
two (2) newspapers of general circulation.
(Sgd.) BENEDICTO ERNESTO R. BITONIO JR.
Chairman

(Sgd.) RAUL T. AQUINO
Presiding Commissioner

(Sgd.) LOURDES C. JAVIER
Presiding Commissioner

(Sgd.) GERARDO C. NOGRALES
Presiding Commissioner

(Sgd.) SALIC B. DUMARPA
Presiding Commissioner
(Sgd.) PERLITA B. VELASCO
Commissioner

(Sgd.) ROMEO L. GO
Commissioner

(Sgd.) VICTORIANO R. CALAYCAY
Commissioner

(Sgd.) ANGELITA A. GACUTAN
Commissioner

(Sgd.) ROMEO C. LAGMAN
Commissioner

(Sgd.) TITO F. GENILO
Commissioner

(Sgd.) AURELIO D. MENZON
Commissioner

(Sgd.) OSCAR S. UY
Commissioner

(Sgd.) PROCULO T. SARMEN
Commissioner

(Sgd.) JOVITO C. CAGAANAN
Commissioner

Attested by:

(Sgd.) APOLLO X.C.S. SANGALANG
Executive Clerk of Court IV

Supreme Court Decision: Land Titles: irregularly issued title can be cancelled administratively by LRA

Supreme Court Decision:

Land Titles: irregularly issued title can be cancelled administratively by LRA (Severino M. Manotok IV, et al. vs. Heirs of Homer L. Barque, represented by Teresita Barque Hernandez

PHILIPP L. MANOTOK, JOSE CLEMENTE L. MANOTOK, RAMON SEVERINO L. MANOTOK, THELMA R. MANOTOK, JOSE MARIA MANOTOK, JESUS JUDE MANOTOK, JR. and MA. THERESA L. MANOTOK, represented by their Attorney-in-fact, Rosa R. Manotok,
Petitioners,

- versus -

HEIRS OF HOMER L. BARQUE, represented by TERESITA BARQUE HER-NANDEZ,
Respondents.

Promulgated: December 12, 2005


DECISION

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

These consolidated petitions for review assail, in G.R. No. 162335, the February 24, 2004 Amended Decision1 of the Third Division of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 66642, ordering the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to cancel petitioners’ TCT No. RT-22481 and directing the Land Registration Authority (LRA) to reconstitute respondents’ TCT No. 210177; and in G.R. No. 162605, the November 7, 2003 Amended Decision2 of the Special Division of Five of the Former Second Division in CA-G.R. SP No. 66700 directing the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to cancel petitioners’ TCT No. RT-22481, and the LRA to reconstitute respondents’ TCT No. T-210177 and the March 12, 2004 Resolution3 denying the motion for reconsideration.
The facts as found by the Court of Appeals4 are as follows:

Petitioners, (respondents herein) as the surviving heirs of the late Homer Barque, filed a petition with the LRA for administrative reconstitution of the original copy of TCT No. 210177 issued in the name of Homer L. Barque, which was destroyed in the fire that gutted the Quezon City Hall, including the Office of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, sometime in 1988. In support of the petition, petitioners submitted the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 210177, real estate tax receipts, tax decla-rations and the Plan FLS 3168 D covering the property.
Upon being notified of the petition for administrative recon-stitution, private respondents (petitioners herein) filed their opposition thereto claiming that the lot covered by the title under reconstitution forms part of the land covered by their reconsti-tuted title TCT No. RT-22481, and alleging that TCT No. 210177 in the name of petitioners’ predeces-sors-in-interest is spurious.
On June 30, 1997, Atty. Benjamin M. Bustos, as reconstituting officer, denied the reconstitution of TCT No. 2101775 on grounds that:
1. Lots 823-A and 823-B, Fls-3168-D, containing areas of 171,473 Sq. Mtrs. and 171,472 Sq. Mtrs., respectively, covered by TCT No. 210177, appear to duplicate Lot 823 Piedad Estate, containing an area of 342,945 Sq. Mtrs., covered by TCT No. 372302 registered in the name of Severino M. Manotok, et. al., reconstituted under Adm. Reconstitution No. Q-213 dated February 01, 1991;
2. The submitted plan Fls-3168-D is a spurious docu-ment as categorically stated by Engr. Privadi J.G. Dalire, Chief, Geodetic Surveys Division, Land Management Bureau, in his letter dated February 19, 1997.6
Respondents’ motion for recon-sideration was denied in an order7 dated February 10, 1998 hence they appealed to the LRA.
The LRA ruled that the reconstituting officer should not have required the submission of documents other than the owner’s duplicate certificate of title as bases in denying the petition and should have confined himself with the owner’s duplicate certificate of title.8 The LRA further declared:
Based on the documents presented, petitioners have established by clear and convincing evidence that TCT NO. 210177 was, at the time of the destruction thereof, valid, genuine, authentic and effective. Petitioners duly presented the original of the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 210177 .... The logbook of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City lists TCT No. 210177 as among the titles lost .... The Register of Deeds of Quezon City himself acknowledged the existence and authenticity of TCT No. 210177 when he issued a certification to the effect that TCT No. 210177 was one of the titles destroyed and not salvaged from the fire that gutted the Quezon City Hall on 11 June 1988 ....
It is likewise noteworthy that the technical description and boundaries of the lot reflected in TCT No. 210177 absolutely conform to the technical description and boundaries of Lot 823 Piedad Estate ... as indicated in the B. L. Form No. 28-37-R dated 11-8-94 and B. L. Form No. 31-10 duly issued by the Bureau of Lands ....
It therefore becomes evident that the existence, validity, authenticity and effectivity of TCT No. 210177 was established indubitably and irrefutably by the petitioners. Under such circumstances, the reconstitution thereof should be given due course and the same is mandatory.9
….
It would be necessary to underscore that the certified copy

through levy on real property; and (2) by judicial action.22 Under Section 25723 and 25824 of the LGC, the basic real property tax constitutes as a lien on the property subject to the tax which may be levied upon through the issuance of a warrant. The local government unit concerned may also enforce the collection of the basic real property tax by civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction.25
Respondents levied on a portion of the MAGRA to satisfy the tax delinquency of PNOC-EDC. However, the land being levied is classified as inalienable. It is owned by the government and thus, cannot be sold at public auction. Likewise, the machineries, equipment and other infrastructures in the MAGRA cannot be levied and sold at public auction because it is not the property that is subject to the tax.
The personal liability for the tax delinquency, is generally on whoever is the owner of the real property at the time the tax accrues; where, however, the tax liability is imposed on the beneficial use of the real property such as those owned but leased to private persons or entities by the government, or when the assessment is made on the basis of the actual use thereof, the personal liability is on any person who has such beneficial or actual use at the time of the accrual of the tax.26
In the case at bar, PNOC-EDC is the beneficial user, however, since respondents cannot avail of the administrative remedy through levy, they can only enforce the collection of real property tax through civil action.
PNOC-EDC also claims that the real property tax assessment is not yet final and executory. It avers that prior resort to administrative remedies before seeking judicial remedies is not necessary considering that the issue raised is purely a question of law. Consequently, it need not appeal the assessment to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals or to the Central Board of Assessment Appeals as provided under Sections 22627 and 22928 of the LGC.
We disagree. It is well-settled in Systems Plus Computer College of Caloocan City v. Local Government of Caloocan City29 that all adminis-trative remedies must be exhausted before availing of the judicial remedies. Thus:
The petitioner cannot bypass the authority of the concerned administrative agencies and directly seek redress from the courts even on the pretext of raising a supposedly pure question of law without violating the doctrine of exhaustion of adminis-trative remedies. Hence, when the law provides for remedies against the action of an administrative board, body, or officer, as in the case at bar, relief to the courts can be made only after exhausting all remedies provided therein. Otherwise stated, before seeking the intervention of the courts, it is a precondition that petitioner should first avail of all the means afforded by the administrative processes.
If PNOC-EDC was not satisfied with the assessment of its property, it should have appealed to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals within 60 days from receipt of the written notice of assessment. Instead, it waited until the issuance of a warrant of levy before it filed a petition for injunction in the regional trial court, which was not in accordance with the remedies provided in the LGC.
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The September 8, 2004 Decision and the January 10, 2005 Order of the Regional Trial Court of Kidapawan City, Branch 17, in Civil Case No. 2003-14, are AFFIRMED insofar as it declared PNOC-EDC liable to pay the real property tax accruing from its use of the MAGRA. Respondents however are DIRECTED to refrain from levying on the buildings, infrastructures and machineries of PNOC-EDC to satisfy the payment of the real property tax delinquency.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Quisumbing, Carpio and Azcuna, JJ., concur.



WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby GRANTED. The Decision of this Court dated 29 October 2003 is RECONSIDERED and a new one is entered ordering the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to cancel petitioners’ TCT No. RT-22481 and directing the LRA to reconstitute forthwith respondents’ TCT No. T-210177.
SO ORDERED.24
From the foregoing decisions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 66700 and CA-G.R. SP No. 66642, petitioners filed separate petitions for review before this Court docketed as G.R. No. 162605 and G.R. No. 162335, respectively.
In G.R. No. 162605, petitioners argue that:

I
THE MAJORITY JUSTICES ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN ORDERING THE CANCEL-LATION OF PETITIONERS’ EXISTING TITLE, CONSIDERING THAT:
a. THEY ORDERED THE CANCELLATION OF TITLE DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SAME IS NOT PART OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT IN A RECONSTITUTION PROCEEDINGS.
b. THEY ALLOWED A COLLATERAL ATTACK ON A TORRENS CERTIFICATE OF TITLE; and
c. THE COURT OF APPEALS, IN RESOLVING AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY, DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO ORDER THE CANCELLATION OF TITLE, SINCE ONLY A PROPER REGIONAL TRIAL COURT CAN ORDER THE ANNULMENT/CANCEL-LATION OF A TORRENS TITLE. BY ALLOWING A “SHORT CUT”, THE MAJORITY JUSTICES DEPRIVED THE PETITIONERS OF THEIR PROPERTY AND THEIR CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

II
THE MAJORITY JUSTICES GRAVELY MISAPPLIED THE RULING OF THIS HONORABLE COURT IN ORTIGAS V. VELASCO, CONSIDERING THAT:
a. IN THE ORTIGAS CASE, THERE WERE TWO TITLES EXISTING OVER THE SAME PARCEL OF LAND, AS A RESULT OF THE RECONSTITUTED TITLE ISSUED IN THE NAME OF MOLINA. IN THE INSTANT CASE, ONLY PETITIONERS HOLD TITLE TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, AS RESPONDENTS ARE MERELY TRYING TO HAVE TITLE RECONSTITUTED IN THEIR NAMES.
b. IN ORTIGAS, THERE WERE SEVERAL DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT WHICH PREVIOUSLY RESOLVED THE ISSUE OF OWNERSHIP OF ORTIGAS’ PROPERTY. HENCE, THERE WAS SUF-FICIENT GROUND TO ANNUL MOLINA’S TITLE OUTRIGHT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE ARE NO SUCH DECISIONS IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENTS WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY THE CANCELLATION OF THE TITLE OF PETITIONERS WITHOUT ANY HEARING.25
In G.R. No. 162335, petitioners raise the following issues:
I. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (THIRD DIVISION) COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IN ORDERING THE LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY TO CANCEL TCT NO. RT-22481 OF PETITIONERS MANOTOK NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT SAID COURT WAS FULLY COGNIZANT THAT IT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO EXERCISE SUCH AUTHORITY AND POWER AND THE LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY IS EQUALLY DEVOID OF JURISDICTION ON THE MATTER BECAUSE UNDER THE JUDICIARY REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1980 SPECIFI-CALLY SECTION 19 (2) THEREOF, ONLY THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS HAVE EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OVER CIVIL ACTIONS WHICH INVOLVES TITLE TO, OR POSSESSION OF, REAL PROPERTY, OR ANY INTEREST THEREIN.
II. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (THIRD DIVISION) COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IN INVOKING EQUITABLE CONSIDERATION TO JUSTIFY ITS CHALLENGED AMENDED DECISION DATED FEBRUARY 24, 2004 DIRECTING LRA TO CANCEL PETITIONERS MANOTOK’S TITLE NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT, AS STATED, THE LAW EXPLICITLY VESTS EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TO THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS OVER CIVIL ACTIONS WHICH INVOLVES TITLE TO, OR POSSESSION OF, REAL PROPERTY, OR ANY INTEREST THEREIN.
III. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN FAILING TO ORDER THE SETTING ASIDE OF THE CHALLENGED RESOLUTION DATED JUNE 24, 1998 OF RESPONDENT LAND REGISTRATION AUTHO-RITY IN LRC ADMIN. CASE NO. Q-547 [97] VIEWED FROM THE FACT THAT SAID RESOLUTION OF LRA IS PATENTLY AT WAR WITH LAW AND CONTROLLING JURISPRU-DENCE THAT PROHIBITS RECONSTITUTION OF TITLE BY THIRD PARTY ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN LOST OR DESTROYED IF


of Plan FLS 3168 D was duly issued by the office of Engr. Ernesto Erive, Chief, Surveys Division LMS-DENR-NCR whose office is the lawful repository of survey plans for lots situated within the National Capital Region including the property in question. Said plan was duly signed by the custodian thereof, Carmelito Soriano, Chief Technical Records and Statistics Section, DENR-NCR. Said plan is likewise duly supported by Republic of the Philippines Official Receipt No. 2513818 Q dated 9-23-96 .... Engr. Erive in his letter dated 28 November 1996 addressed to Atty. Bustos … confirmed that a microfilm copy of Plan FLS 3168D is on file in the Technical Records and Statistics Section of his office. Engr. Dalire, in his letter dated 2 January 1997 addressed to Atty. Bustos even confirmed the existence and authenticity of said plan. …
.…
The claim of Engr. Dalire in his letter dated 19 February 1997 that his office has no records or information about Plan FLS 3168-D is belied by the certified copy of the computer print-out duly issued by the Bureau of Lands indicating therein that FLS 3168D is duly entered into the microfilm records of the Bureau of Lands and has been assigned Accession Number 410436 appearing on Page 79, Preliminary Report No. 1, List of Locator Cards and Box Number 0400 and said computer print-out is duly supported by an Offical Receipt ….
The said Plan FLS 3168D is indeed authentic and valid coming as it does from the legal repository and duly signed by the custodian thereof. The documentary evidence presented is much too overwhelming to be simply brushed aside and be defeated by the fabricated statements and concoctions made by Engr. Dalire in his 19 February 1997 letter. …10
Nevertheless, notwithstanding its conclusion that petitioners’ title was fraudulently reconstituted, the LRA noted that it is only the Regional Trial Court (RTC) which can declare that the same was indeed fraudulently reconstituted. It thus opined that respondents’ title may only be reconstituted after a judicial declaration that petitioners’ title was void and should therefore be cancelled.11
The dispositive portion of the LRA’s decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is hereby ordered that reconstitution of TCT No. 210177 in the name of Homer L. Barque, Sr. shall be given due course after cancellation of TCT No. RT-22481 (372302) in the name of Manotoks upon order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED.12
Petitioners’ filed a motion for reconsideration which was opposed by respondents with a prayer that reconstitution be ordered immediately.
On June 14, 2001, petitioners’ motion for reconsideration and respondents’ prayer for immediate reconstitution were denied.13
From the foregoing, respondents filed a petition for review14 with the Court of Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 66700 and praying that the LRA be directed to immediately reconstitute TCT No. 210177 without being subjected to the condition that petitioners’ TCT No. RT-22481 [372302] should first be cancelled by a court of competent jurisdiction.15 Petitioners likewise filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 66642.
In CA-G.R. SP No. 66700, the Second Division of the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision16 on September 13, 2002, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered the assailed Resolution of the LRA dated June 24, 1998 is AFFIRMED in toto and the petition for review is ordered DISMISSED. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.17
Respondents moved for reconsideration.18 On November 7, 2003, the Special Division of Five of the Former Second Division rendered an Amended Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 66700, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, our decision dated 13 September 2002 is hereby reconsidered. Accordingly, the Register of Deeds of Quezon City is hereby directed to cancel TCT No. RT-22481 of private respondents and the LRA is hereby directed to reconstitute forthwith petitioners’ valid, genuine and existing Certificate of Title No. T-210177.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.19
Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of the amended decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 66700 was denied,20 hence, this petition docketed as G.R. No. 162605.
Meanwhile, in CA-G.R. SP No. 66642, the Third Division of the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision21 on October 29, 2003, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Resolution of the LRA dated 24 June 1998 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.22
In so ruling, the Third Division of the Court of Appeals declared that the LRA correctly deferred in giving due course to the petition for reconstitution since there is yet no final judgment upholding or annulling respondents’ title.23
Respondents’ motion for reconsideration was granted by the Third Division of the Court of Appeals on February 24, 2004, thus:

face of protests as to their spurious character by the other side; whether or not inconsistencies in the body of proofs of a party are of such gravity as to justify refusing to give said proofs weight – all these are issues of fact. Questions like these are not reviewable by this court which, as a rule, confines its review of cases decided by the Court of Appeals only to questions of law raised in the petition and therein distinctly set forth.31 A petition for review should only cover questions of law. Questions of fact are not reviewable.32
In Dolfo v. Register of Deeds for the Province of Cavite,33 this Court categorically declared:
Second. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals made a factual finding that petitioner’s title to the land is of doubtful authenticity.
Having jurisdiction only to resolve questions of law, this Court is bound by the factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals....
In view of the foregoing, it is no longer necessary to remand the case to the RTC for the determination of which title, petitioners’ or respondents’, is valid or spurious. This has been ruled upon by the LRA and duly affirmed by the two divisions of the Court of Appeals.
The LRA has the jurisdiction to act on petitions for administrative reconstitution. It has the authority to review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm on appeal the decision of the reconstituting officer. The function is adjudicatory in nature – it can properly deliberate on the validity of the titles submitted for reconstitution. Logically, it can declare a title as sham or spurious, or valid on its face. Otherwise, if it cannot make such declaration, then there would be no basis for its decision to grant or deny the reconstitution. The findings of fact of the LRA, when supported by substantial evidence, as in this case, shall be binding on the Court of Appeals.34
In the reconstitution proceedings, the LRA is bound to determine from the evidence submitted which between or among the titles is genuine and existing to enable it to decide whether to deny or approve the petition. Without such authority, the LRA would be a mere robotic agency clothed only with mechanical powers.
The Court of Appeals also properly exercised its appellate jurisdiction over the judgment of the LRA. Under Sections 1 and 3, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, the appellate court has jurisdiction on appeals from judgments or final orders of the LRA, whether the appeal involves questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law.
Indeed, it would be needlessly circuitous to remand the case to the RTC to determine anew which of the two titles is sham or spurious and thereafter appeal the trial court’s ruling to the Court of Appeals. After all, the LRA and the two divisions of the appellate court have already declared that petitioners’ title is forged. In Mendoza v. Court of Appeals,35 we ruled that:
Now, technically, the revocation and cancellation of the deed of sale and the title issued in virtue thereof in de los Santos’ favor should be had in appropriate proceedings to be initiated at the instance of the Government. However, since all the facts are now before this Court, and it is not within de los Santos’ power in any case to alter those facts at any other proceeding, or the verdict made inevitable by said facts, for this Court to direct at this time that cancellation proceedings be yet filed to nullify the sale to de los Santos and his title, would be needlessly circuitous and would unnecessarily delay the termination of the controversy at bar, .... This Court will therefore make the adjudication entailed by the facts here and now, without further proceedings, as it has done in other cases in similar premises.
No useful purpose will be served if a case or the determination of an issue in a case is remanded to the trial court only to have its decision raised again to the Court of Appeals and then to the Supreme Court. The remand of the case or of an issue to the lower court for further reception of evidence is not necessary where the Court is in position to resolve the dispute based on the records before it and particularly where the ends of justice would not be subserved by the remand thereof.36
The Register of Deeds, the LRA and the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction to act on the petition for administrative reconstitution. The doctrine laid down in Alabang Dev. Corp., et al. v. Hon. Valenzuela, etc., et al.37 does not apply in the instant case. In Alabang, the Court stressed that:
… [L]ands already covered by duly issued existing Torrens Titles … cannot be the subject of petitions for reconstitution of allegedly lost or destroyed titles filed by third parties without first securing by final judgment the cancellation of such existing titles. … The courts simply have no jurisdiction over petitions by such third parties for reconstitution of allegedly lost or destroyed titles over lands that are already covered by duly issued subsisting titles in the names of their duly registered owners. The very concept of stability and indefeasibility of titles covered under the Torrens System of registration rules out as anathema the issuance of two certificates of title over the same land to two different holders thereof. …38
The Alabang ruling was premised on the fact that the existing Torrens title was duly issued and that there is only one title subsisting at the time the petition for reconstitution was filed. In the instant case, it cannot be said that petitioners’ title was duly issued much less could it be presumed valid considering the findings of the LRA and the Court of Appeals that the same is sham and spurious.
The Court of Appeals properly applied the doctrine laid down in Ortigas in refusing to remand the case to the trial court. As expressly declared in Ortigas & Company Limited Partnership v. Velasco:39

ANOTHER VALID TITLE IS EXISTING COVERING THE LAND SUBJECT THEREOF.
IV. THE LRA COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN ORDERING THE RECONSTITUTION OF THE TITLE OF HOMER BARQUE, SR. SUBJECT ONLY TO THE CONDITION THAT THE TITLE OF PETI-TIONERS MANOTOK SHOULD FIRST BE ORDERED CANCELLED BY COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION IN THE FACE OF THE GLARING FACTS THAT SAID TITLE IS HIGHLY SUSPECT AND BEARS BADGES OF FABRICATION AND FALSIFICATION AND THEREFORE NO OTHER LOGICAL AND CREDIBLE CONCLUSION CAN BE DRAWN EXCEPT THAT IT IS A FAKE AND SPURIOUS TITLE.
V. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN ALLOWING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WHICH WAS CLEARLY FILED OUT OF TIME.26
On August 2, 2004, the petition in G.R. No. 162605 was consolidated with the petition in G.R. No. 162335.27
In sum, petitioners contend that (a) the LRA has no authority to annul their title; (b) the reconstitution of respondents’ Torrens title would be a collateral attack on petitioners’ existing title; (c) they were not given the opportunity to be heard, specifically the chance to defend the validity of their Torrens title; (d) the Court of Appeals, in resolving the appeal from the LRA, has no jurisdiction to order the cancellation of petitioners’ title; and (e) the ruling in Ortigas was misapplied.
The petitions must be denied.
The LRA properly ruled that the reconstituting officer should have confined himself to the owner’s duplicate certificate of title prior to the reconstitution. Section 3 of Republic Act (RA) No. 2628 clearly provides:
Section 3. Transfer certificates of title shall be reconstituted from such of the sources hereunder enume-rated as may be available, in the following order:
(a) The owner’s duplicate of the certificate of title;
....
When respondents filed the petition for reconstitution, they submitted in support thereof the owner’s duplicate certificate of title, real estate tax receipts and tax declaration. Plainly, the same should have more than sufficed as sources for the reconstitution pursuant to Section 3 of RA No. 26 which explicitly mandates that the reconstitution shall be made following the hierarchy of sources as enumerated by law. In addition, Section 12 of the same law requires that the petition shall be accompanied with a plan and technical description of the property only if the source of the reconstitution is Section 3(f) of RA No. 26. Thus:
Section 12. … Provided, That in case the reconstitution is to be made exclusively from sources enumerated in section 2(f) or 3(f) of this Act, the petition shall further be accompanied with a plan and technical description of the property duly approved by the Chief of the General Land Registration Office, or with a certified copy of the description taken from a prior certificate of title covering the same property.29
Since respondents’ source of reconstitution is the owner’s duplicate certificate of title, there is no need for the reconstituting officer to require the submission of the plan, much less deny the petition on the ground that the submitted plan appears to be spurious. By enumerating the hierarchy of sources to be used for the reconstitution, it is the intent of the law to give more weight and preference to the owner’s duplicate certificate of title over the other enumerated sources.
The factual finding of the LRA that respondents’ title is authentic, genuine, valid, and existing, while petitioners’ title is sham and spurious, as affirmed by the two divisions of the Court of Appeals, is conclusive before this Court. It should remain undisturbed since only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Findings of fact of administrative bodies are accorded respect, even finality by this Court and, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are no longer reviewable except only for very compelling reasons. Basic is the rule that factual findings of agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions … are accorded not only respect but even finality, aside from the consideration that this Court is essentially not a trier of facts.30
Such questions as whether certain items of evidence should be accorded probative value or weight, or rejected as feeble or spurious, or whether or not the proofs on one side or the other are clear and convincing and adequate to establish a proposition in issue, are without doubt questions of fact. Whether or not the body of proofs presented by a party, weighed and analyzed in relation to contrary evidence submitted by adverse party, may be said to be strong, clear and convincing; whether or not certain documents presented by one side should be accorded full faith and credit in the

Ordinarily, the relief indicated by the material facts would be the remand of the reconstitution case (LRC No. Q-5405) to the Court of origin with instructions that Ortigas’ and the Solicitor General’s appeals from the judgment rendered therein, which were wrongly disallowed, be given due course and the records forthwith transmitted to the appellate tribunal. This, in fact, is a relief alternatively prayed for by petitioner Ortigas. Considering however the fatal infirmities afflicting Molina’s theory or cause of action, evident from the records before this Court, such a remand and subsequent appeal proceedings would be pointless and unduly circuitous. Upon the facts, it is not possible for Molina’s cause to prosper. To defer adjudication thereon would be unwarranted and unjust.
The same rationale should apply in the instant case. As already discussed, the validity of respondents’ and petitioners’ title have been squarely passed upon by the LRA and reviewed and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which factual findings are no longer reviewable by this Court.
A careful examination of the case of Spouses Cayetano, et al. v. CA, et al.,40 where this Court, as claimed by petitioners, have affirmed their title over the disputed property, would reveal that the sole issue resolved therein is whether or not a tenancy relationship exists between the parties.41 There was no adjudication on ownership. In fact, it cannot even be discerned if the property subject of the Spouses Cayetano case refers to the property subject of the instant controversy.
There is no basis in the allegation that petitioners were deprived of “their property” without due process of law when the Court of Appeals ordered the cancellation of their Torrens title, even without a direct proceeding in the RTC. As already discussed, there is no need to remand the case to the RTC for a re-determination on the validity of the titles of respondents and petitioners as the same has been squarely passed upon by the LRA and affirmed by the appellate court. By opposing the petition for reconstitution and submitting their administratively reconstituted title, petitioners acquiesced to the authority and jurisdiction of the reconstituting officer, the LRA and the Court of Appeals, and recognized their authority to pass judgment on their title. All the evidence presented was duly considered by these tribunals. There is thus no basis to petitioners’ claim that they were deprived of their right to be heard and present evidence, which is the essence of due process.
As held in Yusingco v. Ong Hing Lian:42
Therefore, it appearing from the records that in the previous petition for reconstitution of certificates of title, the parties acquiesced in submitting the issue of ownership for determination in the said petition, and they were given the full opportunity to present their respective sides of the issues and evidence in support thereof, and that the evidence presented was sufficient and adequate for rendering a proper decision upon the issue, the adjudication of the issue of ownership was valid and binding.
The reconstitution would not constitute a collateral attack on petitioners’ title which was irregularly and illegally issued in the first place.43 As pertinently held in Dolfo v. Register of Deeds for the Province of Cavite:44
The rule that a title issued under the Torrens System is presumed valid and, hence, is the best proof of ownership of a piece of land does not apply where the certificate itself is faulty as to its purported origin.
In this case, petitioner anchors her arguments on the premise that her title to the subject property is indefeasible because of the presumption that her certificate of title is authentic. However, this presumption is overcome by the evidence presented, consisting of the LRA report … that TCT No. T-320601 was issued without legal basis …
….
Thus, petitioner cannot invoke the indefeasibility of her certificate of title. It bears emphasis that the Torrens system does not create or vest title but only confirms and records one already existing and vested. Thus, while it may be true, as petitioner argues, that a land registration court has no jurisdiction over parcels of land already covered by a certificate of title, it is equally true that this rule applies only where there exists no serious controversy as to the authenticity of the certificate.
Under similar circumstances, this Court has ruled that wrongly reconstituted certificates of title secured through fraud and misrepresentation cannot be the source of legitimate rights and benefits.45
WHEREFORE, the petitions are DENIED. In G.R. No. 162335, the February 24, 2004 Amended Decision of the Third Division of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 66642, ordering the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to cancel petitioners’ TCT No. RT-22481 and directing the Land Registration Authority to reconstitute respondents’ TCT No. 210177; and in G.R. No. 162605, the November 7, 2003 Amended Decision of the Special Division of Five of the Former Second Division in CA-G.R. SP No. 66700 directing the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to cancel petitioners’ TCT No. RT-22481, and the Land Registration Authority to reconstitute respondents’ TCT No. T-210177 and the March 12, 2004 Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration, are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., and Quisumbing,JJ., concur.
Carpio, J. The Dissenting Opinion
Azcuna,J. I concur in separate opinion.