4/29/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
ENFORCEABLE by mere motion before this Honorable office without need of
separate action.[5] [Emphases and underscoring supplied]
On November 8, 2010, petitioner timely filed a petition for certiorari with the CA.[6]
In the meantime, on March 2, 2011, the LA issued a writ of execution which noted
petitioner's payment of the amount of US$81,320.00. On March 16, 2011, in
compliance with the said writ, petitioner tendered to the NLRC Cashier the additional
amounts of US$8,132.00 as attorney's fees and P3,042.95 as execution fee. In its
Order, dated March 31, 2011, the LA ordered the release of the aforementioned
amounts to respondent.
The CA's Ruling
Unaware of a) the September 5, 2010 entry of judgment of the NLRC, b) the October
22, 2010 payment of US$81,320.00, and c) the writ of execution issued by the LA, the
CA rendered its Decision, dated June 29, 2011. The CA partially granted the petition for
certiorari and modified the assailed resolutions of the NLRC, awarding only
US$60,000.00 pursuant to the CBA between Celebrity Cruise Lines and Federazione
Italianaa Transporti CISL.
Petitioner then filed its Manifestation with Motion to Amend the Dispositive Portion,
submitting to the CA the writ of execution issued by the LA in support of its motion.
Petitioner contended that since it had already paid the total amount of US$89,452.00, it
was entitled to the return of the excess payment in the amount of US$29,452.00.
In its assailed January 5, 2012 Resolution, the CA denied the motion and ruled that the
petition should have been dismissed for being moot and academic not only because the
assailed decision of the NLRC had become final and executory on September 5, 2010,
but also because the said judgment had been satisfied on October 22, 2010, even
before the filing of the petition for certiorari on November 8, 2010. In so ruling, the CA
cited the pronouncement in Career Philippines Ship Management v. Geronimo Madjus[7]
where it was stated that the satisfaction of the monetary award rendered the petition
for certiorari moot.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the CA in its assailed
July 20, 2012 Resolution.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUES
I. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS
REVERSIBLE ERROR OF LAW IN RULING THAT PETITIONER IS
ESTOPPED IN COLLECTING THE EXCESS PAYMENT IT MADE TO
THE RESPONDENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE RECEIPT OF
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55882
3/10