Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > March 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-14439 March 25, 1960 - NARIC WORKER’S UNION, ET AL. v. HON. CARMELINO G. ALVENDIA, ET AL.

107 Phil 404:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-14439. March 25, 1960.]

NARIC WORKER’S UNION, ET AL., Petitioners, v. HON. CARMELINO G. ALVENDIA, ET AL., Respondents.

Vicente T. Ocampo, for Petitioners.

Diosdado V. Salamanca, Bernardo R. Laureta and Quirico T. Carag, Jr. for respondent NARIC.


SYLLABUS


1. GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS; NARIC AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE GOVERNMENT. — Conceding that the NARIC is an instrumentality of the Government, especially since the law creating it (Republic Act 663) expressly declares the same to be so, yet its activities are not purely or exclusively governmental in nature. Thus, under the statute, the corporation is empowered, under Section 3 thereof, among other matters, to buy and sell rice and corn or its by-products; to give loans on reasonable terms and finance activities in the rice and corn industry; to borrow, raise or secure money; to mortgage or otherwise encumber its properties; and to enter into, make, perform and carry out contracts of every class and description necessary or incidental to its purpose, for which it may derive profits or incur losses.

2. ID.; ID.; RIGHT OF WORKERS TO STRIKE; REMEDY IF STRIKERS COMMIT ACTS OF VIOLENCE. — Since under the proviso of Section 11 of the Industrial Peace Act (Republic Act 875), the prohibition to strike is limited to "employees employed in governmental functions and not to those employed in proprietary functions of the Government," employees of the NARIC whose work consists mainly in hauling goods at the corporation’s warehouses, barges and piers, and therefore bears only a very remote relation to the governmental functions of the NARIC, are not covered by the prohibition. If the employees are committing acts of violence and bodily harm during the course of their strike, the remedy to enjoin the same lies not with the ordinary courts but with the Industrial Court which has exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute.

3. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS; EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION. — The Court of Industrial Relations has exclusive jurisdiction over the following cases:" (1) when the labor dispute affects an industry which is indispensable to the national interest and is so certified by the President to the Industrial Court (Section 10, Republic Act 875); (2) when the controversy refers to the minimum wage under the Minimum Wage Law (Republic Act 602); (3) when it involves hours of employment under the Eight Hour Labor Law (Commonwealth Act 444); and (4) when it involves an unfair labor practice (Section 5 (a), Republic Act 875." (Paflu, Et. Al. v. Tan, Et Al., 52 Off. Gaz. 5836.)

4. ID.; ID.; COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE NOT DIVESTED OF ITS JURISDICTION. — It not appearing that in this case the unfair labor practice case filed by the NARIC Workers Union with the Court of Industrial Relations was filed merely to divest the Court of First Instance of its jurisdiction, it is not relevant whether the filing of the complaint before the industrial Court was prior to or later than the filing of the complaint in the civil case for damages (Erlanger & Galinger, Inc., v. Erlanger & Galinger Employees Ass. (NATU), 104 Phil., 17).

5. ID.; ID.; ISSUE IN MAIN CASE INTERWOVEN WITH UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CASES PENDING IN INDUSTRIAL COURT; ACTS WHICH MAY BE ENJOINED BY INDUSTRIAL COURT. — "It appearing that the issue involved in the main case is interwoven with the unfair labor practice cases pending before the Court of Industrial Relations as to which its jurisdiction is exclusive, it is evident that it does not fall under the jurisdiction of the trial court even if it involves acts of violence, intimidation and coercion as averred in the complaint. These acts come within the purview of Section 9 (d) of Republic Act 875 which may be enjoined by the Court of Industrial Relations." (National Garments and Textile Worker’s Union-Paflu v. Caluag, etc., Et Al., G. R. No. L-9104, September 30, 1956.)

6. LABOR LEGISLATION; CONSTRUCTION. — Restrictions of the worker’s basic right to collective action to improve their condition of work or protect themselves against oppressive practices are to be strictly construed.


D E C I S I O N


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


In an order dated May 27, 1958, respondent Honorable Carmelino Alvendia granted a writ of preliminary injunction in Civil Case No. 36353 (for damages) of the Court of First Instance of Manila. Orders of July 1, 1958 and August 20, 1958 of the respondent Honorable Judge Bonifacio Ysip, respectively, denied herein petitioners’ motion to dismiss the said civil case and motion for reconsideration of the denial. From said orders, petitioners filed the instant petition for certiorari with prohibition.

It appears that on May 26, 1958, the respondent National Rice and Corn Corporation filed a complaint versus the herein petitioners, Naric Worker’s Union and its officers, in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 36353 for Damages with Ex-parte Petition for Preliminary Injunction) as a result of the alleged blocking and obstruction of the gates of the respondent company’s office by striking picketers who threatened violence and bodily harm to persons crossing the union’s picket lines. On the same date that the complaint was filed, respondent Judge Carmelino Alvendia issued ex parte an order for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, directing the petitioners and their agents to refrain from the commission of the acts complained of until further orders from the court.

The writ was subsequently signed by Judge Bonifacio Ysip in May 27. In due time, the petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and dissolve the retraining orders, urging that the respondent court had no jurisdiction over the case since it grows out of a labor dispute involving an unfair labor practice case (CIR Case No. 1677-ULP), and, therefore, exclusively cognizable by the Court of Industrial Relations.

Having been unsuccessful in the lower court, petitioners brought this petition for review, reiterating their contentions in the court below. We granted due course to the petition, and upon petitioners’ filing a bond of P500.00, a writ of preliminary injunction was issued by this Court. The parties do not contest that courts of first instance have no jurisdiction in cases that grow out of labor disputes involving unfair labor practices. 1 Respondent National Rice and Corn Corporation, however, argues that it (NARIC) has been held, by judicial as well as administrative and executive pronouncements, to be a body performing governmental functions 2 , and according to Section 11 of Republic Act No. 875, petitioners are precluded from declaring a strike against it.

The portion of the law relied upon by the respondent corporation is to this effect —

"Sec. 11. Prohibition Against Strikes in the Government. — The terms and conditions of employment in the Government, including any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof, are governed by law and it is declared to be the policy of the Act that employees therein shall not strike for the purpose of securing changes or modifications in their terms and conditions of employment. Such employees may belong to any labor organization which does not impose the obligation to strike or to join in strike: Provided, however, That this section shall apply only to employees employed in governmental functions and not to those employed in proprietary functions of the Government including but not limited to governmental corporations." (Rep. Act 875).

Conceding that the respondent National Rice and Corn Corporation is an instrumentality of the Government, especially since the law creating it (Republic Act No. 663) expressly declares the same to be so, 3 yet its activities are not purely or exclusively governmental in nature.

Thus, under the statute, the corporation is empowered, under Section 3 thereof, among other matters, to buy and sell rice and corn or its by- products; to give loans on reasonable terms and finance activities in the rice and corn industry; to borrow, raise or secure money; to mortgage or otherwise encumber its properties; and to enter into, make, perform and carry out contracts of every class and description necessary or incidental to its purpose, for which it may derive profits or incur losses.

Now, under the proviso of Section 11 of the Industrial Peace Act (already quoted), the prohibition to strike is clearly limited to "employees employed in governmental functions and not to those employed in proprietary functions of the Government" (Sec. 11, Republic Act 875). Since the work of the members of the petitioning union consists mainly in hauling goods at the respondent’s warehouses, barges and piers, the same bears only a very remote relation to the governmental functions of respondent corporation, and the union members are not covered by the prohibition against strikes. Restrictions of the workers’ basic right to collective action to improve their conditions of work or protect themselves against oppressive practices are to be strictly construed.

If, as stated by the respondents the petitioners were committing acts of violence and bodily harm during the course of their strike, the remedy to enjoin the same lies not with the ordinary courts but with the Industrial Court which has exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute.

Respondents contend that the case of the petitioners does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations. There is no merit in this assertion. In the leading case of PAFLU, Et. Al. v. Tan, Et Al., 52 Off. Gaz., 5836, we already made it clear that the Industrial Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the following cases:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(1) When the labor dispute affects an industry which is indispensable to the National interest and is so certified by the President to the Industrial Court (Section 10, Republic Act 875); (2) when the controversy refers to the minimum wage under the Minimum Wage Law (Republic Act 602); (3) when it involves hours of employment under the Eight Hour Labor Law (Commonwealth Act 444); and when it involves an unfair labor practice (Section 5 (a), Republic Act 875)."cralaw virtua1aw library

It appears that even before the filing of respondent corporation’s complaint in Civil Case No. 36353 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, the Naric Workers’ Union had already filed charges for unfair labor practices against the corporation, leading to the filing of a complaint before the Industrial Court by a special prosecutor thereat, dated June 11, 1958, and docketed as Case No. 1677-ULP. The charges include the refusal of the corporation to deal with the representatives of the complainant union for collective bargaining and its desire to discriminate against and discourage membership in the complainant union in violation of sub-paragraphs 4 and 6 of Republic Act 875. It does not appear that the unfair labor practice case was filed merely to divest the Court of First Instance of its jurisdiction and it is not, thus, relevant whether the filing of the complaint before the Industrial Court was prior to or later than the filing of the complaint in the civil case for damages (Erlanger & Galinger, Inc. v. Erlanger & Galinger Employees Assn. (NATU), 104 Phil., 17). In National Garments and Textile Workers’ Union-Paflu v. Caluag, etc., Et Al., G. R. No. L-9104, September 30, 1956, we held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It appearing that the issue involved in the main case is interwoven with the unfair labor practice cases pending before the Court of Industrial Relations as to which its jurisdiction is exclusive, it is evident that it does not fall under the jurisdiction of the trial court even if it involves acts of violence, intimidation and coercion as averred in the complaint. This acts come within the purview of Section 9 (d) of Republic Act 875 which may be enjoined by the Court of Industrial Relations.

The reason for this rule was stated in Erlanger & Galinger, Inc. v. Erlanger & Galinger Employees Assn. (NATU), supra. :jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Since the picketing and strikes may be mere incidents or consequences of the unfair labor practice, it is but proper that the issuance of injunction be made by the court having jurisdiction over the main case, in order that the writ be issued upon cognizance of all relevant facts.’

Since the Court of First Instance had no jurisdiction, the fact that the petitioning union was declared in default does not affect the merits of the case.

Wherefore, the restraining orders complained of, dated May 19, 1958 and May 27, 1958, are set aside, and the complaint is ordered dismissed, without prejudice to the National Rice and Corn Corporation’s seeking whatever remedy it is entitled to in the Court of Industrial Relations. Costs against the corporation.

Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Concepción, Barrera, and Gutiérrez David, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Consolidated Labor Ass’n of the Philippines, Et. Al. v. Caluag, Et Al., G. R. No. L-12330, May 30, 1958; Reyes, Et. Al. v. Tan, Et Al., 103 Phil., 1032; Reyes, et al v. Tan, 99 Phil., 880; National Garment and Textile Worker’s Union-Paflu v. Caluag, Et Al., G. R. No. L-9104, September 10, 1956.

2. Citing Tabora v. Montelibano, 52 Off. Gaz., 3058; Opinion No. 15, Series of 1958 of the government Corporate Counsel; letter of the Executive Secretary, date May 26, 1958, to the NARIC Assistant Manager; Opinion No. 212, Series of 1958 of the Secretary of Justice, reiterating opinion of the Secretary of Justice No. 319, s. 1954; No. 264, s. 1956; and No. 219 s. 1957.

3. The pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 663, creating the National Rice and Corn Corporation, provide:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Sec. 3. For carrying out the foregoing objectives, the Corporation shall have authority —

(a) To act as the agent or instrumentality of the Government in any of its governmental, social or civic functions in such a manner and under such conditions as may be prescribed by law or by executive order or proclamation; . . .," (Italics supplied).

Common law courts invariably conceded corporations as instrumentalities of the State whenever the law creating it so provides (Huffman v. Home Owner’s Loan Corp., 39 F. Supp. 139; Herman Et. Al., v. Home Owners’ Loan Corp., 200 Atl. 742; see also, Port Angeles Western R. Co. v. Clallam County, Wash., Et Al., 20 Fed. 2d. 202; Trinity Farm Const. Co. v. Alice Gosjean 78 L. Ed. 918; Barnsdall Refineries, Inc., Et. Al. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, Et Al., 41 p. 2d 918).




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






March-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Case No. 228 March 9, 1960 - PANFILO ROYO v. CELSO T. OLIVA

    107 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. L-14436 March 21, 1960 - HORACIO GUANZON v. FRANCISCO ARAGON, ET AL.,

    107 Phil 315

  • Adm. Case No. 341 March 23, 1960 - DELIA MURILLO v. NICOLAS SUPERABLE JR.

    107 Phil 322

  • G.R. No. L-12776 March 23, 1960 - MARTIN AGLIPAY, ET AL. v. ISABELO DE LOS REYES, JR., ETC.

    107 Phil 331

  • G.R. No. L-13403 March 23, 1960 - RAMON E. SAURA v. ESTELA P. SINDICO

    107 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. L-14304 March 23, 1960 - ANTONIANTONIA A. CABARROGUIS, ET AL. v. TELESFORO B. VICENTE

    107 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. L-8587 March 24, 1960 - BENITO E. LIM, ETC. v. HERBERT BROWNELL, JR., ETC., AND KAGAWA

    107 Phil 344

  • G.R. No. L-11747 March 24, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELISA TE, ET AL.

    107 Phil 355

  • G.R. No. L-11954 March 24, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLINAR ACOSTA and CONSOLACION BRAVO

    107 Phil 360

  • G.R. Nos. L-13270-71 March 24, 1960 - JESUS T. PINEDA v. MOISES G. CARANDANG

    107 Phil 369

  • G.R. No. L-13476 March 24, 1960 - REMEDIOS L. VILLANUEVA v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

    107 Phil 373

  • G.R. No. L-14058 March 24, 1960 - William Gue v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    107 Phil 381

  • G.R. No. L-14303 March 24, 1960 - REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION v. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC.

    107 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. L-11059 March 25, 1960 - ADRIAN FONG v. EMILIO M. JAVIER

    107 Phil 392

  • G.R. No. L-12603 March 25, 1960 - MUNICIPALITY OF HINABAÑGAN AND RUFINA NABUAL v. MUN. OF WRIGHT AND JULIAN ABEGONIA

    107 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. L-12870 March 25, 1960 - MARTIR ET AL. v. AMADO P. JALANDONI and PAZ RAMOS

    107 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. L-13663 March 25, 1960 - ESPERIDION ADORABLE, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY

    107 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. L-14439 March 25, 1960 - NARIC WORKER’S UNION, ET AL. v. HON. CARMELINO G. ALVENDIA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. L-10313 March 28, 1960 - ISIDORA S. VDA. DE JESUS, ET AL. v. LUCIANO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    107 Phil 411

  • G.R. No. L-12253 March 28, 1960 - OLIMPIO GUTIERREZ v. MIGUEL SANTOS, ET AL.

    107 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. L-13387 March 28, 1960 - SY CHIUCO v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    107 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. L-13683 March 28, 1960 - PAZ SAMANILLA v. CENEN A. CAJUCOM, ET AL.

    107 Phil 432

  • G.R. Nos. L-13688-91 March 28, 1960 - CATALINO GUITARTE v. LUCIA SABACO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 437

  • G.R. No. L-11310 March 29, 1960 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. PHIL. RECORDING SYSTEM, INC., ET AL.

    107 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. L-13465 March 29, 1960 - SELPH v. GLICERIA M. VDA. DE AGUILAR

    107 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. L-13832 March 29, 1960 - GERONIMO DE LOS REYES v. FROILAN BAYONA, ETC., ET AL.

    107 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. L-14710 March 29, 1960 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. ENCARNACION AGUSTINES, ET AL.

    107 Phil 455

  • G.R. No. L-7969 March 30, 1960 - JAI-ALAI CORP. OF THE PHILS. v. LUIS CHING KIAT BIEK, ET AL.

    107 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. L-9740 March 30, 1960 - EL HOGAR FILIPINO MUTUAL BLDG. LOAN ASS. ET AL. v. BUILDING EMPLOYEES INC., ET AL.

    107 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. L-9940 March 30, 1960 - AVELINO REVILLA and ELENA FAJARDO v. GODOFREDO GALINDEZ

    107 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. L-10393 March 30, 1960 - BAY VIEW HOTEL EMPLOYEES’ UNION v. BAY VIEW HOTEL, INC., ET AL.

    107 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. L-10471 March 30, 1960 - INOCENCIA INGARAN, ET AL. v. FEDERICO RAMELO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 498

  • G.R. No. L-1053 March 30, 1960 - SILVERIO BLAQUERA, ETC., v. ESTEFANIA VDA. DE ALDABA and COURT OF APPEALS

    107 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. L-10705 March 30, 1960 - LUIS ATIENZA BIJIS v. FRANCISCO LEGASPI, ET AL.,

    107 Phil 512

  • G.R. No. L-10915 March 30, 1960 - SOLEDAD BACALZO, ET AL. v. MARTINA PACADA

    107 Phil 520

  • G.R. No. L-12541 March 30, 1960 - ROSARIO U. YULO v. YANG CHIAO SENG

    107 Phil 527

  • G.R. No. L-12795 March 30, 1960 - ACSAY MANDIH v. GREGORIO TABLANTIN

    107 Phil 530

  • G.R. No. L-12956 March 30, 1960 - ENRIQUE S. CASTRO v. ESPERANZA B. MONTES, ET AL.

    107 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. L-13026 March 30, 1960 - NG HIN v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

    107 Phil 537

  • G.R. No. L-13072 March 30, 1960 - HACIENDA LUISITA v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    107 Phil 542

  • G.R. No. L-13246 March 30, 1960 - FEDERICO CALERO v. EMILIA CARION Y SANTA MARINA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 549

  • G.R. No. L-13505 March 30, 1960 - BACOLOD MURCIA MILLING CO., INC. v. FIDEL HENARES

    107 Phil 560

  • G.R. No. L-13791 March 30, 1960 - ALFRED EDWARD FAWCETT v. EULOGIO BALAO

    107 Phil 570

  • G.R. No. L-13852 March 30, 1960 - PEDRO AVENTURA and ANACLETA GALAN v. HON. PANTALEON A. PELAYO, ETC. AT AL.

    107 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. L-14541 March 30, 1960 - CONSUELO VELAYO v. COURT OF APPEALS and RODOLFO VELAYO

    107 Phil 587

  • G.R. No. L-14718 March 30, 1960 - VICENTE JIMENEZ, ET AL. v. CARMELO S. CAMARA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 590

  • G.R. No. L-14794 March 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BATUNDO MINURAY and BALICUAT GUBAT

    107 Phil 598

  • G.R. No. L-16132 March 30, 1960 - RICARDO CANCERAN, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    107 Phil 607

  • G.R. No. L-16731 March 30, 1960 - FELIPE ECO v. JUAN DE G. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

    107 Phil 612