Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > July 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-12747 July 30, 1960 - RIZAL CEMENT CO., INC. v. RIZAL CEMENT WORKERS’ UNION (FFW), ET AL.

109 Phil 34:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-12747. July 30, 1960.]

RIZAL CEMENT CO., INC., Petitioner-Appellant, v. RIZAL CEMENT WORKERS’ UNION (FFW), ET AL., Respondents-Appellees.

Bausa, Ampil & Suarez for Appellant.

Enage, Beltran & Lacson for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS; JURISDICTION OVER LABOR DISPUTES CERTIFIED BY THE PRESIDENT. — The Court of Industrial Relations has exclusive jurisdiction when the labor dispute affects an industry which is indispensable to the national interest and when it is certified thereto by the President of the Philippines.


D E C I S I O N


PARAS, J.:


On May 29, 1956, the petitioner, Rizal Cement Co., Inc., filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila a petition seeking to enjoin the respondents, Rizal Cement Workers’ Union, Et Al., from illegal picketing conducted pursuant to a strike declared by the respondent Union in the evening of May 27, 1956, against the petitioner. The court thereupon issued an order restraining the respondents from the acts complained of, it appearing that the allegations of the petition, particularly paragraphs 5 and 6, sustained prima facie the petitioner’s claim.

On June 1, 1956, the respondents filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that, in matters of injunction in labor disputes as provided in Republic Act No. 875, the Court of Industrial Relations has jurisdiction to the exclusion of the lower court, and that the allegations in the petition clearly show, that the case falls exclusively within the province of the Court of Industrial Relations. The petitioner, however, argued that, assuming Republic Act No. 875 to be applicable, the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations was not intended to be exclusive.

After hearing, the court issued on June 12, 1956, a lengthy order granting the preliminary injunction prayed for upon the filing of a bond in the amount of P5,000.00. The court adopting the ruling laid down in the case of Reyes v. Tan (99 Phil., 880, 62 Off. Gaz., [14] 6187), denied the respondents’ motion to dismiss.

On November 20, 1956, the respondents moved for the reconsideration of the order and, in addition to their argument involving Republic Act No. 875, they contended that the strike was an off-shoot of unfair labor practices allegedly committed by the petitioner, with the result that the case thereby fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations. On December 21, 1956, the strike involved in the case was certified by the President of the Philippines to the Court of Industrial Relations pursuant to Section 10 (h) of Republic Act No. 875. Particularly in view of this development, the court sustained the respondents’ contentions and forthwith ordered the case dismissed and the preliminary injunction dissolved. From this order, the petitioner has appealed.

The petitioner insists that the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction under Section 44 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, the matter complained of being ordinary violence, threats, intimidation and coercion which are cognizable by ordinary courts. From the facts that, although the respondents in their motion to dismiss alleged lack of jurisdiction, the lower court had entertained the petition and directed the issuance of the preliminary injunction; that it denied peremptorily the motion to dismiss after consideration of the arguments and evidence of each party; and that it set for hearing the motion for reconsideration of the order denying the motion to dismiss, the petitioner also insists that the lower court should have retained the jurisdiction thus already acquired and exercised, because the same cannot be removed by any, subsequent event or even after the expiration of the law governing the case (Roxas v. Sayoc, 100 Phil., 448; 53 Off. Gaz., [17] 5642; Luzon Brokerage Co. v. Luzon Labor Union, Et Al., 92 Phil., 61; 48 Off. Gaz. [9] 3883).

The records show that the Clerk of Court of the Court of Industrial Relations had certified to the existence of unfair labor practice cases in said court between the parties, offshoots of the labor dispute involved in the strike in question. During the pendency of the motion for reconsideration in the lower court, the labor dispute was admittedly certified by the President of the Philippines to the Court of Industrial Relations. Following the decision in Reyes v. Tan, 99 Phil., 880; 52 Off. Gaz. [17] 6187, the Court of Industrial Relations has exclusive jurisdiction when the labor dispute affects an industry which is indispensable to the national-interest and it is certified thereto by the President of the Philippines. (See Sec. 10, R. A. No. 875.) .

In not sustaining the jurisdiction of the lower court and in declaring that the Court of Industrial Relations possesses exclusive jurisdiction, this Court was guided by and has merely adhered to the objectives of the Magna Charta of Labor. It is the intention of this special law to make the Court of Industrial Relations the repository of all actions involving labor disputes and, with more reason, unfair labor practices. Confusion and delay would be avoided and the settlement of labor disagreements would thus be expedited. The lower court was correct when it concluded as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . After consideration of the law, the Court is impelled to sustain the position of respondents on the second point; there is no question that by virtue of the communications of December 29, 1956, and pursuant to Section 10 of Republic Act No. 875, the strike was certified to the Court of Industrial Relations; and that being the case, the only effect should be that it is only the Court of Industrial Relations that should have authority to go into the merits and consequences of the strike and apply its coercive powers when necessary one way or the other; if this Court were to proceed and try this case just the same notwithstanding Exhibit ‘2’ the result would be to render nugatory the exclusive jurisdiction granted to the Court of Industrial Relations; it is true that Exhibit ‘2’ as interpreted by this Court would have the consequence of depriving this Court of jurisdiction, but as we view this case, it is one where when this case was presented, this Court had jurisdiction but that jurisdiction was lawfully withdrawn pursuant to Section 10, Republic Act No. 875, by virtue of Exhibit ‘2’; this is more properly a case of abatement and there being no showing that the President had no authority to certify the strike unto the Court of Industrial Relations that authority must stand with the necessary consequence of taking out this case from this Court; and this being the result, there would be no more need to go to the first point debated between the parties."cralaw virtua1aw library

Wherefore, the order appealed from is affirmed with costs against the petitioner. So ordered.

Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera and Gutierrez David, 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






July-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12998 July 25, 1960 - BIENVENIDA JOCSON, ET AL. v. MANUEL P. SILOS

    108 Phil 923

  • G.R. No. L-13299 July 25, 1960 - PERFECTO ADRID, ET AL. v. ROSARIO MORGA, ETC.

    108 Phil 927

  • G.R. No. L-14934 July 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BUENAVENTURA BULAN, ET AL.

    108 Phil 932

  • G.R. No. L-11241 July 26, 1960 - VALENTIN ILO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    108 Phil 938

  • G.R. No. L-11834 July 26, 1960 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. GREGORIO ABIERA, ET AL.

    108 Phil 943

  • G.R. No. L-11840 July 26, 1960 - ANTONIO C. GOQUIOLAY, ET AL. v. WASHINGTON Z. SYCIP, ET AL.

    108 Phil 947

  • G.R. No. L-11994 July 26, 1960 - LUISA A. VDA. DE DEL CASTILLO v. RAFAEL P. GUERRERO

    108 Phil 989

  • G.R. No. L-12495 July 26, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO LIDRES

    108 Phil 995

  • G.R. No. L-12628 July 26, 1960 - IN RE: YU KAY GUAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 1001

  • G.R. No. L-12984 July 26, 1960 - WARNER, BARNES & CO., LTD. v. EDMUNDO YASAY, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1005

  • G.R. No. L-12999 July 26, 1960 - PAFLU v. HON. JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1010

  • G.R. No. L-13267 July 26, 1960 - SALVADOR CRESPO v. MARIA BOLANDOS, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1023

  • G.R. No. L-13364 July 26, 1960 - HIND SUGAR CO., INC. v. HON. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1026

  • G.R. No. L-13373 July 26, 1960 - LUNETA MOTOR CO. v. MAXIMINO SALVADOR, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1037

  • G.R. No. L-13646 July 26, 1960 - BENITO MANALANSAN v. LUIS MANALANG, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1041

  • G.R. No. L-13684 July 26, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO YAPTINCHAY, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1046

  • G.R. No. L-13953 July 26, 1960 - MONS. CARLOS INQUIMBOY v. MARIA CONCEPCION PAEZ VDA. DE CRUZ

    108 Phil 1054

  • G.R. No. L-14096 July 26, 1960 - CITY OF MANILA v. FORTUNE ENTERPRISES, INC.

    108 Phil 1058

  • G.R. No. L-14229 July 26, 1960 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT CO. v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1063

  • G.R. No. L-14258 July 26, 1960 - NATIONAL DEV’T CO. v. JUAN ARALAR, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1068

  • G.R. No. L-14313 July 26, 1960 - DIONISIO ESGUERRA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 1078

  • G.R. No. L-14428 July 26, 1960 - AGATON SEGARRA v. FELIX MARONILLA, JR.

    108 Phil 1086

  • G.R. No. L-14432 July 26, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONCIO LIM

    108 Phil 1091

  • G.R. No. L-14505 July 26, 1960 - MIGUEL KAIRUZ v. ELENA S. PACIO, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1097

  • G.R. No. L-14519 July 26, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS. v. LUIS G. ABLAZA

    108 Phil 1105

  • G.R. No. L-14550 July 26, 1960 - IN RE: ONG KUE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS.

    108 Phil 1109

  • G.R. No. L-14689 July 26, 1960 - GENERAL MARITIME STEVEDORES’ UNION OF THE PHILS, ET AL. v. SOUTH SEA SHIPPING LINE, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1112

  • G.R. No. L-14743 July 26, 1960 - GLORIA ABRERA v. LUDOLFO V. MUÑOZ

    108 Phil 1124

  • G.R. No. L-15544 July 26, 1960 - PHILIPPINE AIR LINES INC. v. PHILIPPINE AIR LINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION

    108 Phil 1129

  • G.R. No. L-15743 July 26, 1960 - OMBE v. VICENTE DIGA

    108 Phil 1137

  • G.R. No. L-16011 July 26, 1960 - DOMINGO T. PARRAS v. LAND REGISTRATION COMMISSION

    108 Phil 1142

  • G.R. No. L-16263 July 26, 1960 - DR. JOSE CUYEGKENG v. DR. PEDRO M. CRUZ

    108 Phil 1147

  • G.R. No. L-16464 July 26, 1960 - VICENTE MALINAO v. MARCOS RAVELES

    108 Phil 1159

  • G.R. No. L-16835 July 26, 1960 - FILEMON SALCEDO, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    108 Phil 1164

  • G.R. No. L-13435 July 27, 1960 - EUSEBIO MANUEL v. EULOGIO RODRIGUEZ, SR., ET AL.

    109 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-13632 July 27, 1960 - FEDERICO DE LOS ANGELES, ET AL. v. HON. GUSTAVO VICTORIANO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. L-13851 July 27, 1960 - DEOGRACIAS F. MALONZO v. GREGORIA T. GALANG, ET AL.

    109 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. L-15853 July 27, 1960 - FERNANDO AQUINO v. CONCHITA DELIZO

    109 Phil 21

  • G.R. No. L-13369 July 28, 1960 - RICARDO PALMA v. HON. ENRIQUE A. FERNANDEZ, ETC.

    109 Phil 26

  • G.R. No. L-11151 July 30, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 32

  • G.R. No. L-12747 July 30, 1960 - RIZAL CEMENT CO., INC. v. RIZAL CEMENT WORKERS’ UNION (FFW), ET AL.

    109 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. L-13268 July 30, 1960 - LUCIANA SASES, ET AL. v. HON. PASTOR P. REYES, ET AL.

    109 Phil 38

  • G.R. No. L-13760 July 30, 1960 - FILEMON MARIBAO v. LUCIO ORTIZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. L-13767 July 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAQUITO PRIAS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. L-14806 July 30, 1960 - ZAMBOANGA COPRA PROCUREMENT CORP. v. CITY OF ZAMBOANGA

    109 Phil 58

  • G.R. No. L-14936 July 30, 1960 - GENERAL SHIPPING CO., INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COM., ET AL.

    109 Phil 60

  • G.R. No. L-14970 July 30, 1960 - MARIA B. CASTRO v. GERONIMO DE LOS REYES

    109 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. L-15093 July 30, 1960 - NARIC v. CELSO HENSON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 81