Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1956 > January 1956 Decisions > [G.R. No. L-7496. January 31, 1956.] CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC., Petitioner, vs. KATIPUNAN LABOR UNION, Respondent.:




FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-7496.  January 31, 1956.]

CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC., Petitioner, vs. KATIPUNAN LABOR UNION, Respondent.

 

D E C I S I O N

LABRADOR, J.:

On June 24, 1953 the Court of Industrial Relations received a petition of the Katipunan Labor Union dated June 8, 1953 entitled “Caltex Cebu Branch vs. Katipunan Labor Union” and docketed as Case No. 430-V (1), alleging that employee Florencio Alforque of the Respondent labor union has been dismissed by the Petitioner without sufficient or valid cause and without an investigation, in violation of the order of the Court of Industrial Relations dated March 18, 1950, and praying that said Alforque be reinstated in his position with full pay from May 1, 1953, the date of his dismissal, to the date of his reinstatement. This petition was received in the Court of Industrial Relations after the approval of Republic Act No. 875 on June 17, 1953, although it was mailed prior to the said date of approval. The Caltex (Philippines) Inc. filed an answer alleging that Alforque lacks judgment, initiative and ability in his work as a mechanic; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat the branch in which he worked is over-staffed and the services of Alforque were not needed; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat case No. 430-V was terminated long before the petition was filed; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand that the petition does not state facts to merit an exercise of jurisdiction by the Court of Industrial Relations. After hearing the Court declared it has jurisdiction over the case and ordered the provisional reinstatement of Alforque to his former position, pending hearing on the merits of the dismissal. A motion to reconsider the same was denied, so this present petition was filed in this court alleging that the Court of Industrial Relations has no jurisdiction over the case first, because the court lacks jurisdiction to order the reinstatement after the enactment of Republic Act No. 875; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarysecond, because only one employee, not 31 members, is involved; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand, third, there is no labor dispute between the employer and the workers.

It appears that sometime in 1950, a labor dispute arose between the Katipunan Labor Union and the Caltex (Philippines) Inc. The case was docketed in the Court of Industrial Relations as case No. 430-V, “Caltex Cebu Branch vs. Katipunan Labor Union.” The case was amicably settled on June 29, 1950, the court approving the settlement in an order issued on July 28, 1950. Among the terms of the amicable settlement was an agreement that “the company prior to any dismissal, lay-off or suspension should give the union opportunity to be heard and the union should be given not less than three (3) days notice before any hearing or investigation” is conducted. Failure of the Court of Industrial Relations for the reinstatement to comply with this agreement was the basis for the order of Alforque.

One of the reasons given why the Court of Industrial Relations is alleged to have no jurisdiction over the case is that the petition was received in the Court of Industrial Relations after Republic Act No. 875 was approved on June 17, 1953. In answer to this contention it is to be noted that it is the practice before courts of justice to consider the mails as an agent of the Government — so the date of mailing is always considered as the date of filing any petition, motion or paper. As the petition in the present case was mailed before the approval of Republic Act No. 875, it may not be considered filed after the new law had become effective.

The next contention is that the dismissal of the employee is not a labor dispute. This is without merit. The term labor dispute is defined as including.

cralaw any controversy concerning terms, tenure or conditions of employment  cralaw” (Sec. 2[j], Republic Act No. 875).

The existing agreement between the Katipunan Labor Union and the Petitioner, that no employee should be dismissed without notice and an opportunity for hearing, is a condition or term of the employment agreement. The enforcement of the agreement is not the concern of the employee affected alone, but that of the whole labor union to which he belongs; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythere is labor dispute because there is controversy between the union and the employer regarding it.

Another argument of Petitioner is that the agreement in question, entered into in the year 1950, only terminated the case then existing, and it or the decision rendered thereon is not applicable three (3) years thereafter. This contention is not justified by the very terms of the agreement itself, which clearly contemplate future relationship between the parties. As the relationship of employer and employee continued to exist without any change or modification of the agreement, the parties are presumed to have continued under its terms.

We find no merit in the petition and we hereby deny it with costs against the Petitioner.

Paras, C.J., Padilla, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L. and Endencia, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






January-1956 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. L-7900. January 12, 1956.] CIRIACO TIGLAO, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. THE MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-10030. January 18, 1956.] NAMARCO, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE JUDGE HIGINIO B. MACADAEG, of the Court of First Instance of Manila and KHO KUN COMMERCIAL, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8324. January 19, 1956.] JOSE BARADI and SABINA BONITA, Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. MANUEL IGNACIO, GERONIMA RESMAL, MARCELINO IGNACIO and COSME IGNACIO, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-7900. January 12, 1956.] CIRIACO TIGLAO, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. THE MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-10030. January 18, 1956.] NAMARCO, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE JUDGE HIGINIO B. MACADAEG, of the Court of First Instance of Manila and KHO KUN COMMERCIAL, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8324. January 19, 1956.] JOSE BARADI and SABINA BONITA, Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. MANUEL IGNACIO, GERONIMA RESMAL, MARCELINO IGNACIO and COSME IGNACIO, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-9688. January 19, 1956.] RAFAEL J. CASTRO, Petitioner, vs. VALERIANO M. GATUSLAO, Acting Provincial Governor of Negros Occidental, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-7086. January 20, 1956.] NGO SENG, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. RAFAEL FERNANDEZ, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-7280. January 20, 1956.] TAN LIAO, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LTD., Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-7974. January 20, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BOANERJES M. VENTURANZA, ET AL., Defendants. JOSE Y. TORRES, Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-7260. January 21, 1956.] PHILIPPINE EXECUTIVE COMMISSION (now REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES), Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. PROCESO ESTACIO, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-9860. January 21, 1956.] BENITO MONTINOLA, Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-6536. January 25, 1956.] EMILIANO N. RAMIREZ, Petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and OLGA MULLER NEASE, assisted by her husband DARIUS NEASE, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8550. January 25, 1956.] In the matter of the petition of TIU PENG HONG to be admitted as citizen of the Philippines. TIU PENG HONG, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-9174. January 25, 1956.] JOAQUIN LEDESMA, in his capacity as Mayor of Cadiz, Negros Occidental, and the MUNICIPALITY OF CADIZ, Negros Occidental, Petitioners, vs. HONORABLE JOSE TEODORO, SR., Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, JOSE AZCONA, Provincial Sheriff Ex-Officio of Negros Occidental, and JOSE AGAPUYAN, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-6587. January 27, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GAUDENCIO DE JOYA Y CAPACIA, ET AL., Defendants, RICARDO HORNALES Y YAMBAO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-7562. January 30, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. VlCTORIANO FRANCISCO Y MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. Nos. L-9322-23. January 30, 1956.] TEODORO TANDA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. NARCISO N. ALDAYA, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-5405. January 31, 1956.] ERNESTO M. GUEVARA, Petitioner, vs. ROSARIO GUEVARA and PEDRO C. QUINTO, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-6251. January 31, 1956.] LEONORA MANAOIS, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. JOSE ZAMORA, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-6423. January 31, 1956.] AYALA Y COMPA�IA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSEPH ARCACHE, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-6662. January 31, 1956.] PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DALMACIO CATIPON, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-6741. January 31, 1956.] INTERPROVINCIAL AUTOBUS CO., INC., Petitioner, vs. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-6843. January 31, 1956.] THE NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NEW YORK, Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL CITY BANK EMPLOYEES UNION, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-6903. January 31, 1956.] LIBRADA PROCESO DESPO, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. HONORABLE ANDRES STA. MARIA, ET AL., Respondents-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-7377. January 31, 1956.] GREGORIO ARANETA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. PAZ TUASON DE PATERNO and JOSE VIDAL, Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. Nos. L-7472-7477. January 31, 1956.] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. SERGIO VILLANUEVA, ET AL., accused. IGMIDIO CAMAGONG, MELECIO PAKINGAN, BIENVENIDO MOJICA, RICARDO GONZALES, MARCIANO TIMBANG, and SERAFIN TIMBANG, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-7496. January 31, 1956.] CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC., Petitioner, vs. KATIPUNAN LABOR UNION, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-7663. January 31, 1956.] ENRIQUE ZOBEL, Petitioner, vs. ELIGIO A. ABREU, as Justice of the Peace of Calatagan, Batangas and GUILLERMO MERCADO, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8010. January 31, 1956.] LOPEZ INC., represented by DAVID DE LEON in his capacity as in-charge, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. PHILIPPINE & EASTERN TRADING CO., INC., Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8221. January 31, 1956.] EDUARDO MANLAPAT, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. SIMEON SALAZAR, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. Nos. L-9320 & L-9321. January 31, 1956.] ALIPIO N. CASILAN and RITA GALAGNARA, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. RAYMOND TOMASSI, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-9669. January 31, 1956.] NICANOR G. SALAYSAY, Acting Municipal Mayor of San Juan del Monte, Rizal, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE FRED RUIZ CASTRO, Executive Secretary, Office of the President of the Philippines, HONORABLE WENCESLAO PASCUAL, Provincial Governor of Rizal, and DOCTOR BRAULIO STO. DOMINGO, Respondents.