ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
January-1958 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. L-9456 & L-9481 January 6, 1958 - THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. DOMINGO DE LARA

    102 Phil 813

  • G.R. No. L-9692 January 6, 1958 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

    102 Phil 822

  • G.R. Nos. L-8845-46 January 7, 1958 - BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. MARTIN SOUZA

    102 Phil 835

  • G.R. No. L-10202 January 8, 1958 - IN RE: SY CHHUT alias TAN BING TIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 839

  • G.R. No. L-10420 January 10, 1958 - IN RE: LIM KIM So alias FRANCISCO LIM KIM SO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 843

  • G.R. Nos. L-10249-60 January 14, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFINO CRISOSTOMO

    102 Phil 846

  • G.R. No. L-10285 January 14, 1958 - SAMPAGUITA SHOE v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    102 Phil 850

  • G.R. No. L-10423 January 21, 1958 - AMADO P. JALANDONI v. ANGELA MARTIR-GUANZON

    102 Phil 859

  • G.R. No. L-11000 January 21, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALICIA RAPIRAP

    102 Phil 863

  • G.R. No. L-11014 January 21, 1958 - VICTORIANA ESPIRITU v. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

    102 Phil 866

  • G.R. No. L-10196 January 22, 1958 - SANTOS LUMBER COMPANY v. CITY OF CEBU

    102 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. L-10776 January 23, 1958 - MELITON HERRERA v. THE AUDITOR GENERAL OF THE REP. OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 875

  • G.R. No. L-10922 January 23, 1958 - GREGORIO P. DE GUZMAN v. JOSE B. RAMOSO

    102 Phil 883

  • G.R. No. L-12294 January 23, 1958 - UNITED PEPSI-COLA SALES ORGANIZATION (PAFLU) v. HON. ANTONIO CA‘IZARES

    102 Phil 887

  • G.R. No. L-10234 January 24, 1958 - IN RE: Victoriano Yap Subieng to be admitted a citizen of the Phil.; VICTORIANO YAP SUBIENG v. REP. OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 892

  • G.R. No. L-9689 January 27, 1958 - JESUS T. QUIAMBAO v. PEDRO R. PERALTA

    102 Phil 899

  • G.R. No. L-10806 January 27, 1958 - DAVID AZNAR v. ASUNCION SUCILLA

    102 Phil 902

  • G.R. No. L-11093 January 27, 1958 - LEONARDO ENAGE LABAJO v. CIRIACO ENRIQUEZ

    102 Phil 907

  • G.R. No. L-10446 January 28, 1958 - COLLEGE OF ORAL & DENTAL SURGERY v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

    102 Phil 912

  • G.R. No. L-10874 January 28, 1958 - RUFINO D. ANDRES v. THE CROWN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

    102 Phil 919

  • G.R. No. L-10702 January 29, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIXTO CABARLES

    102 Phil 926

  • G.R. No. L-10091 January 29, 1958 - BOY SCOUTS OF THE PHIL. v. JULIANA V. ARAOS

    102 Phil 1080

  • G.R. No. L-11343 January 29, 1958 - CARLOS LEDESMA v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

    102 Phil 931

  • G.R. No. L-11248 January 30, 1958 - ANACLETA VILLAROMAN v. QUIRINO STA. MARIA

    102 Phil 937

  • Adm. Case No. 195 January 31, 1958 - IN RE: Attorney JESUS T. QUIAMBAO

    102 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. L-8252 January 31, 1958 - JOSE C. ZULUETA v. NICANOR NICOLAS

    102 Phil 944

  • G.R. No. L-9871 January 31, 1958 - ATKINS v. B. CUA HIAN TEK

    102 Phil 948

  • G.R. No. L-9928 January 31, 1958 - REP. OF THE PHIL. v. THE COURT OF APPEALS

    102 Phil 953

  • G.R. No. L-10022 January 31, 1958 - NORTHERN MOTORS v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION

    102 Phil 958

  • G.R. No. L-10141 January 31, 1958 - REP. OF THE PHIL. v. PHILIPPINE RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

    102 Phil 960

  • G.R. Nos. L-10236-48 January 31, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTACIO DE LUNA

    102 Phil 968

  • G.R. No. L-10370 January 31, 1958 - THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MATIAS H. AZNAR

    102 Phil 979

  • G.R. No. L-10547 January 31, 1958 - THE PHIL. GUARANTY CO. v. LAURA DINIO

    102 Phil 991

  • G.R. No. L-10691 January 31, 1958 - ERLINDA STERNBERG v. GONZALO SOLOMON

    102 Phil 995

  • G.R. No. L-10747 January 31, 1958 - MARIANO DIAZ v. PASCUAL MACALINAO

    102 Phil 999

  • G.R. No. L-10902 January 31, 1958 - FLORIDA LAGMAY v. EMERENCIANA QUINIT

    102 Phil 1003

  • G.R. No. L-11024 January 31, 1958 - ALFONSO ANGELES v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, GREOGORIO STA. INES

    102 Phil 1006

  • G.R. No. L-11186 January 31, 1958 - ALFONSO CABABA v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    102 Phil 1013

  • G.R. No. L-11395 January 31, 1958 - SOTERA GARCIA DIMAGIBA v. HON. AMBROSIO M. GERALDEZ

    102 Phil 1016

  • G.R. No. L-11647 January 31, 1958 - FLORENTINO NAVARRO v. HON. ELOY BELLO

    102 Phil 1019

  • G.R. No. L-12724 January 31, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARIDAD CAPISTRANO

    102 Phil 1025

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-12294 January 23, 1958 - UNITED PEPSI-COLA SALES ORGANIZATION (PAFLU) v. HON. ANTONIO CA‘IZARES<br /><br />102 Phil 887

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-12294. January 23, 1958.]

    UNITED PEPSI-COLA SALES ORGANIZATION (PAFLU), Petitioner, v. HON. ANTONIO CA‘IZARES, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondents.

    Cipriano Cid & Associates for Petitioner.

    Vicente J. Francisco for respondent Company.


    SYLLABUS


    1. CERTIORARI; WHEN ACTION DOES NOT LIE; CASE AT BAR. — In the company’s complaint and petition for preliminary injunction, there is nothing that could apprise the court below that an unfair labor practice was involved. Nor can the lack of jurisdiction of the lower court be simply assumed from the bare fact that an unfair labor practice case had been filed with the Court of Industrial Realtions. The criterion, to bring the case under the jurisdiction of the Indusrial Court, is whether the acts complained of in the petition for injunction of, or are connected or interwoven with, the unfair labor practice case. (PAFLU v. Caluag, L-9104, Sept. 10, 1956), a question of fact, that should be brought to the attention of the court a quo to enable it to pass upon the issue whether it has jurisdiction or not over the case. As defendants failed to show to the trial court that it had no jurisdiction, they cannot complain that it abused its discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction. Hence, certiorari does not lie.

    2. INDUSTRIAL PEACE ACT; INJUNCTION "EX PARTE," REQUIRES FOR ISSUANCE. — Section 9 (d) of Republic Act No. 875 requires that an injunction ex parte shall be issued only "upon testimony under oath, sufficient, if sustained, to justify the Court in issuing a temporary injunction upon hearing after notice." This procedure has been followed in the present case, it appearing that the allegations of the verified complaint are substantially sufficient to justify the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, and the court, in its order directing the issuance of the writ ex parte, states that plaintiff’s verified complaint was "supported by testimony of a witnesses given under oath."

    3. ID.; ID.; DURATION OF THE INJUNCTION. — A temporary restraining order issued ex parte becomes void and of no effect after the fifth day of its issuance, by operation of law and even without any judicial pronouncement to that effect (Reyes v. Tan, 99 Phil., 880, 52 Off. Gaz. No. 14 6187; Allied Free Workers Union v. Apostol, supra p. 292).


    D E C I S I O N


    REYES, J. B. L., J.:


    This is a petition for certiorari to nullify an order of preliminary injunction issued ex parte by the Court of First Instance of Manila in its Civil Case No. 32397.

    It appears that on April 25, 1957, the respondent Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of the Philippines, Inc. filed a complaint for injunction in the court below against the United Pepsi-Cola Sales Organization (IPSO), the Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) and Gary Miranda, UPSO President, alleging that on April 16, 1957, about 100 of its employees and laborers, who are members of the defendant unions, declared a strike and formed picket lines alongside the whole length of its premises at Aurora Boulevard and Balete Drive, completely blocking the entrance to said premises; that in the course of the picketing, certain acts of violence, intimidation, and other unlawful acts were committed; that plaintiff had requested the Quezon City Police Department to extend protection to its non-striking employees, but said police department failed to furnish the protection requested; that reasonable efforts to settle the labor dispute from which the strike arose had been made by plaintiff with the aid of the Conciliation Service of the Department of Labor; that plaintiff had no other adequate remedy in law; and that unless a temporary restraining order was issued ex parte, substantial and irreparable injury to plaintiff’s property would be unavoidable.

    On the same day that the complaint was filed, the lower court received testimony under oath of the witnesses for plaintiff and thereafter, upon the Company’s filing of a bond of P1000, issued a writ of preliminary injunction, ordering defendants to:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "(a) Refrain and desist from obstructing, stopping, blocking, coercing, intimidating or in any way or manner preventing the nonstriking employees of the plaintiff company from going in and out of the company premises in pursuance of their respective work;

    (b) Refrain and desist from obstructing, stopping, blocking, coercing, intimidating or in any way or manner preventing or hampering the ingress and egress of the public to and from company premises; and

    (c) Refrain and desist from obstructing, stopping, coercing, intimidating or in any way or manner preventing plaintiff company’s employees, irrespective of date of employment, from carrying on the work assigned to them by the company in its premises at Quezon City or elsewhere." (Annex "C", Petition)

    Without asking the lower court for a dissolution of the injunction, the defendants filed with this Court the present petition for certiorari, two days after the issuance of the enjoining writ.

    Two arguments are advanced by petitioner union against the validity of the writ of preliminary injunction in question, namely: (1) that the lower court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the injunction case and issue the order of injunction in view of the pendency of an unfair labor practice case between the same parties in the Court of Industrial Relations; and (2) that the writ in question was not issued in accordance with the procedure outlined by Republic Act No. 875.

    In our opinion, the petition must be dismissed and the writ prayed for denied.

    First, because petitioner did not bring up before the trial court, prior to asking certiorari, the issue of jurisdiction as well as the facts upon which such issue may be resolved or decided — i. e., the supposed interrelation and connection between the acts described in the complaint for injunction and the unfair labor practice case in the Court of Industrial Relations, which connection was not apparent on the face of the record; thereby depriving the trial court of the opportunity to determine for itself whether it had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case and issue the injunction order. Settled is the rule that certiorari will not lie where the relief sought is obtainable by application in the court of origin and the attention of the court has not been called to its supposed error (Herrera v. Barreto, 25 Phil., 245; Uy Chu v. Imperial, 44 Phil. 27; Manila Post Publishing Co. v. Sanchez, 81 Phil. 614; Alvarez v. Ibañez, 83 Phil., 104; 46 Off. Gaz. 4233; Nicolas v. Castillo, 97 Phil., 336; Ricafort v. Fernan, 101 Phil. 575, 54 Off. Gaz., [8] 2534).

    We see nothing in the Company’s complaint and petition for preliminary injunction that could apprise or warn the court below that an unfair labor practice case was involved, Nor can the lack of jurisdiction of the lower court be simply assumed from the bare fact that an unfair labor practice case had been filed with the Court of Industrial Relations. The criterion, to bring the case under the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court, is whether the acts complained of in the petition for injunction arose out of, or are connected or interwoven with, the unfair labor practice case (PAFLU v. Caluag, G. R. L-9104, Sept. 10, 1956), a question of fact that should be brought to the attention of the court a quo to enable it to pass upon the issue whether it has jurisdiction or not over the case. As defendants failed to show to the trial court that it had no jurisdiction they can not complain now that it abused its discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction.

    Second, the writ of preliminary injunction was issued by the lower court in accordance with the provisions of R. A. 875, sec. 9(d), requiring that an injunction ex parte be issued only "upon testimony under oath, sufficient, if sustained, to justify the court in issuing a temporary injunction upon hearing after notice." We find that this procedure has been followed in this case, it appearing that the allegations of the verified complaint are substantially sufficient to justify the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, and the court, in its order directing the issuance of the writ ex parte, states that plaintiffs’s verified complaint was "supported by testimony of witnesses given under oath" (Annex "C", Petition).

    Finally, a temporary restraining order issued ex parte, "shall be effective for no longer than five days and shall be void at the expiration of said five days," according to sec. 9 (d) of Rep. Act 875. The order of injunction in question having been issued ex parte, it became void and of no effect after the fifth day of its issuance, by operation of law and even without any judicial pronouncement to that effect (Reyes v. Tan, 99 Phil., 880, 52 Off. Gaz. [14] 6187; Allied Free Workers Union v. Apostol, supra, p. 292).

    Wherefore, the petition for certiorari is denied, but the writ of preliminary injunction, issued by the trial court on 25 April 1957, is declared no longer operative. No costs. So ordered.

    Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-12294 January 23, 1958 - UNITED PEPSI-COLA SALES ORGANIZATION (PAFLU) v. HON. ANTONIO CA‘IZARES<br /><br />102 Phil 887


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED