With the limited facts, the following opinion is limited to the assumptions I made of the facts: In the Benjamin

Guimoc case (complete version attached), the SC held that: in executing an order, resolution, or decision of the NLRC, the sheriff of the Commission, or other officer acting as such, must "be guided strictly by the Sheriffs Manual which shall form part of these Rules" (Sec. 4, Rule XI, Revised Rules of the NLRC). The Manual of Instructions for Sheriffs of the NLRC was adopted and promulgated pursuant to Article 218(a) of the Labor Code, as amended, which authorizes the NLRC: ART. 218. Powers of the Commissions. (a) To promulgate rules and regulations governing the hearing and disposition of cases before it and its regional branches, as well as those pertaining to its internal functions and such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Code; Hence, if the case is still pending with the Commission, and act that sought to be performed is an interim act, the Commission pursuant to its authority to promulgate rules pertaining to its internal functions, may issue an Order citing the Sheriff in contempt until the act is performed. Section 2 of the 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, provides that: 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 administration 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.

On the other hand, if the case is already in the execution stage, Section 7 of the same 2005 Rules provides that: 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 Judgment, 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. In the latter case, the Rules of Court may be applied suppletorily. Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides under Section 3: Sec. 3. Petition for mandamus. When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent, immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court, to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent. The petition shall also contain a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46. Sec. 4. Where petition filed. The petition may be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution sought to be assailed in the Supreme Court or, if it relates to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation, board, officer or person, in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or not the same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or in the Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its jurisdiction. If it involves the acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, and unless otherwise provided by law or these Rules, the petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals. The tricky part is determining whether the first part of Section 4 relating to officer or person covers a Sheriff of the NLRC to be under the jurisdiction of the RTC. Please read the attached case of Biana, where the mandamus case against the Provincial Sheriff was originally filed with the RTC, if it applies to the facts of your case. I believe the Mandamus may thus be filed with the CA, where there is no other adequate

remedy (i.e. the 2005 Rules of the NLRC and the Manual of Execution of Judgment provide no remedy), whether or not it is in aid of the CAs appellate jurisdiction, and where the case is already not within the ambit of the powers of the Commission.