Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > October 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-16672 October 31, 1960 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION v. JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ

109 Phil 1152:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-16672. October 31, 1960.]

ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE JUDGE, JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ, ETC., ET AL., Respondents.

J. C. Espinas and D. Mendoza for Petitioner.

E. Reyes for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. EMPLOYEE AND EMPLOYEE; WHEN A LABOR DISPUTE EXISTS. — "A labor dispute exists regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee," for to constitute a labor dispute only an indirect interest is necessary in order to include a party within its meaning (Associated Watchmen and Security Union [PTWO] v. United States Lines at al., 101 Phil., 896; 54 Off. Gaz., 7397; See also Houston and North Texas Motor Freight Lines v. Local Union No. 886 of International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen and Helpers of America, D. C. Okl. 1938, 24 F. Supp. 619, 29 USCA p. 86).

2. COURTS; JURISDICTION; UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE; REGULAR COURTS. — A case does not fall within the jurisdiction of the regular courts if there is already pending between the same parties before the Court of Industrial Relations a case involving an unfair labor practice when the shipping firm initiated the case before the Court of First Instance of Cebu.

3. ID.; ID.; CFI; LABOR DISPUTE; INJUNCTION, HOW ISSUED. — If a case involves a labor dispute, the Court of First Instance before acting on a motion for preliminary injunction shall set the same for hearing, giving notice to the parties with an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, and must make a statement that the other conditions required by law as prerequisites for the granting of relief have been complied with. (Sec. 9 [d], Republic Act 875; Philippine Association of Free Labor Union [PAFLU], Et. Al. v. Tan, Et. Al. 99 Phil., 854; Reyes, Et Al., v. Tan, Et Al., 99 Phil., 880; 52 Off. Gaz., [14] 6187; Allied Free Workers Union, Et. Al. v. Apostol, Et Al., L-8876, Oct. 31, 1957.)


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin respondent judge from further proceeding with the case filed before him and to nullify the preliminary injunction he issued for want of jurisdiction.

It appears that respondent Sweet Lines is a general co- partnership engaged in coast-wise shipping and doing business in the Philippines under the firm name Limpo & Sons. On April 15, 1957, it entered into a contract with the Besañez & Cañete Arrastre Service whereby it was agreed that the loading and unloading of the cargoes of respondent’s vessels at the port of Cebu will be handled by said arrastre Company. On January 14, 1960, the Besañez & Cañete Arrastre Service in turn entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the United Free Workers Union wherein it recognized the said union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the workers in the arrastre service.

On January 27, 1960, the Associated Labor Union, which is also a legitimate labor organization composed of dock workers formerly affiliated with the United Free Workers Union and employed in the loading and unloading of the cargoes of the Sweet Lines, wrote a letter to said firm and the Besañez & Cañete Arrastre Service requesting them to enter into a collective bargaining contract with it because it represents the majority of the regular and permanent workers in the arrastre job. But instead of acceding to the request, the Besañez & Cañete Arrastre Service, thru its capataz and/or foreman, allegedly coerced the members of petitioning union to join the United Free Workers Union with the result that those who refused were not allowed to work. Such act impelled the petitioner to send letters of protest to respondent Sweet Lines and the arrastre company furnishing copies thereof to the Conciliation Service of the Department of Labor. As a consequence, a conference was held among the parties thru the initiative of the Conciliation Service in an effort to settle their differences, but as no concrete agreement was reached the solution of the matter was held in abeyance until further notice.

Since then the relation of the parties became so strained that the members of petitioning union numbering approximately 135 struck on February 22, 1960 filing at the same time a charge of unfair labor practice with the Court of Industrial Relations against the Sweet Lines and the Besañez & Cañete Arrastre Service. Because of the picketing put up by the members of the union against the Sweet Lines a conference was again called by the Conciliation Service in an attempt to settle the conflict, but on February 23, 1960, the shipping firm filed the present complaint before the Court of First Instance of Cebu praying (1) to declare the picketing illegal and unlawful; (2) to order defendant (petitioner herein) to pay plaintiff (respondent herein) the amount of P55,000.00 as damages and attorney’s fees; and (3) to issue, without notice, a writ of preliminary injunction prohibiting the union from picketing plaintiff’s offices and vessels (Case No. 126492). Upon posting by plaintiff of a bond in the amount of P2,000.00, respondent judge, on February 23, 1960, granted the writ prayed for.

The following day the union filed an urgent motion to lift the writ of preliminary injunction. Plaintiff filed its opposition thereto, but before the trial court could act thereon, the union filed the present petition for certiorari.

The only issue posed by petitioner is whether or not respondent judge has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case and, in the affirmative, whether he acted properly in issuing against it, ex parte, the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for.

Petitioner contends that the present case falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations because of the unfair labor practice charge filed with said court prior to the institution of this case before respondent court; that as this case stems from a labor dispute the law that should govern is Republic Act 875; and that peaceful picketing cannot be enjoined it being part of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution. Respondent, on the other hand, avers that there being no employer-employee relationship, or labor dispute, between the parties, the case is cognizable by the regular courts and the procedure that should be observed in the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction is the one prescribed by our Rules of Court and not by Republic Act No. 875.

While it may be admitted that there is no contractual relation between petitioner and respondent regarding the loading and unloading of cargoes coming from the latter’s vessels because the arrastre contract was entered into between respondent and the Besañez & Cañete Arrastre Service, we cannot subscribe to the view that there is no labor relation existing between them for it cannot be denied that the members of petitioning union are actually working for the benefit of the shipping firm by loading and unloading the cargoes coming from its vessels. In fact, the picketing undertaken by the members of said union had so affected the interest of that firm that to avoid damages to its property it instituted the present action. As this Court has aptly said, "a labor dispute exists ‘regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee", for to constitute a labor dispute only an indirect interest is necessary in order to include a party within its meaning. (Associated Watchmen and Security Union [PTWO], Et. Al. v. United States Lines, Et Al., 101 Phil., 896; 54 Off. Gaz. [31] 7397; See also Houston and North Texas Motor Freight Lines v. Local Union No. 886 of International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablement and Helpers of America, D. C. Okl. 1938, 24 F. Supp. 619; 29 USCA p. 86.)

We believe, however, that this case does not fall with in the jurisdiction of the regular courts it appearing that there is already pending between the same parties before the Court of Industrial Relations a case involving an unfair labor practice when the shipping firm initiated the present case before the Court of First Instance of Cebu. 1 And even if we admit, as the record seemingly shows, that when the shipping firm started this case the special prosecutor of the industrial court eliminated said firm from the formal charge of unfair labor practice and only included the arrastre company, still it may be said that the trial court issued illegally the preliminary injunction against the members of the striking union it appearing that in acting on the matter the court did not follow the procedure laid down by Republic Act 875 but instead it applied what is provided for in our Rules of Court. In other words, in a case which involves a labor dispute, as in the present, the court before acting on a motion for preliminary injunction shall set the same for hearing, giving notice to the parties, with an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, and must make a statement that the other conditions required by law as prerequisites for the granting of relief have been complied with. [Section 9 (d), Republic Act 875; Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU), Et. Al. v. Tan, Et Al., 99 Phil., 854; Reyes, Et. Al. v. Tan, Et Al., 99 Phil., 880; 52 Off. Gaz., No. 14, 6187; Allied Free Workers’ Union, Et Al., v. Apostol, Et. Al. 102 Phil., 292. That this procedure has not been followed may be seen from the order of the trial court which we quote hereunder for reference:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"A verified complaint has been filed today by plaintiff, praying among other things, or a writ of preliminary injunction restraining or enjoining the defendant from committing or causing to be committed all acts of picketing plaintiff’s office, vessels and premises, until such time that the legality of such pickets is finally determined by this court. Finding the complaint in order and in accordance with the Rules of Court, let a writ of preliminary injunction be issued against the defendant, its members, subordinates, representatives, agents and employees restraining them from performing the acts described above previous to the filing, by the plaintiff, of a bond in the amount of Two thousand Pesos (P2,000.00).

Wherefore, petition is granted. The writ of preliminary injunction issued by respondent judge is set aside. The writ of injunction issued by this Court is declared permanent. No costs.

Par�s, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Gutiérrez David and Paredes, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU), Et. Al. v. Tan, Et Al., 99 Phil., 854; 52 Off. Gaz. (13) 5836; National Garments & Textiles Workers’ Union v. Caluag, L-9104 Sept. 10, 1956; Benguet Consolidated Mining Co. v. Coto Labor Union, 106 Phil., 915.




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






October-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-15709 October 19, 1960 - IN RE: DAMASO CAJEFE, ET AL. v. HON. FIDEL FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 743

  • G.R. Nos. L-12483 & L-12896-96 October 22, 1960 - NICOLAS JAVIER, ET AL. v. ENRIQUE DE LEON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 751

  • G.R. No. L-15477 October 22, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIANO MEDRANO, SR.

    109 Phil 762

  • G.R. No. L-14111 October 24, 1960 - NARRA v. TERESA R. DE FRANCISCO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 764

  • G.R. No. L-14524 October 24, 1960 - FELIX MOLINA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 769

  • G.R. No. L-14625 October 24, 1960 - IN RE: EULOGIO ON v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 772

  • G.R. No. L-15192 October 24, 1960 - PNB v. TEOFILO RAMIREZ:, ET AL.

    109 Phil 775

  • G.R. No. L-15275 October 24, 1960 - MARIANO A. ALBERT v. UNIVERSITY PUBLISHING CO., INC.

    109 Phil 780

  • G.R. No. L-16006 October 24, 1960 - PERFECTO R. FRANCHE, ET AL. v. HON. PEDRO C. HERNAEZ, ETC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 782

  • G.R. No. L-11766 October 25, 1960 - SOCORRO MATUBIS v. ZOILO PRAXEDES

    109 Phil 789

  • G.R. No. L-14189 October 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUTIQUIO YAMSON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 793

  • G.R. No. L-15233 October 25, 1960 - JUAN L. CLEMENTE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 798

  • G.R. No. L-15326 October 25, 1960 - SEVERINO SAMSON v. DIONISIO DINGLASA

    109 Phil 803

  • G.R. No. L-15502 October 25, 1960 - AH NAM v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 808

  • G.R. No. L-16038 October 25, 1960 - AJAX INT’L. CORP. v. ORENCIO A. SEGURITAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 810

  • G.R. No. L-16404 October 25, 1960 - SAMPAGUITA PICTURES, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 816

  • G.R. No. L-16429 October 25, 1960 - ALEJANDRO ABAO v. HON. MARIANO R. VlRTUCIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 819

  • G.R. No. L-14079 October 26, 1960 - METROPOLITAN WATER DIST. v. EDUVIGES OLEDAN NIRZA

    109 Phil 824

  • G.R. No. L-14157 October 26, 1960 - NEGROS OCCIDENTAL MUNICIPALITIES v. IGNATIUS HENRY BEZORE, ET AL.

    109 Phil 829

  • G.R. No. L-14724 October 26, 1960 - VICTORINO MARIBOJOC v. HON. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, ETC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 833

  • G.R. Nos. L-14973-74 October 26, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN CASUMPANG

    109 Phil 837

  • G.R. Nos. L-15214-15 October 26, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE C. CRUZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 842

  • G.R. No. L-11302 October 28, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN P. AGUILAR, ET AL.

    109 Phil 847

  • G.R. No. L-12659 October 28, 1960 - ABELARDO LANDINGIN v. PAULO GACAD

    109 Phil 851

  • G.R. No. L-14866 October 28, 1960 - IN RE: ANDRES ONG KHAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 855

  • G.R. No. L-15573 October 28, 1960 - RELIANCE SURETY & INS. CO. INC. v. LA CAMPANA FOOD PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 861

  • G.R. No. L-17144 October 28, 1960 - SERGIO OSMEÑA, JR. v. SALIPADA K. PENDATUN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 863

  • G.R. No. L-8178 October 31, 1960 - JUANITA KAPUNAN, ET AL. v. ALIPIO N. CASILAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 889

  • G.R. No. L-11536 October 31, 1960 - TOMAS B. VILLAMIN v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 896

  • G.R. No. L-11745 October 31, 1960 - ROYAL INTEROCEAN LINES, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRlAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 900

  • G.R. No. L-11892 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YAKAN LABAK, ET AL.

    109 Phil 904

  • G.R. No. L-11991 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PORFIRIO TAÑO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 912

  • G.R. No. L-12226 October 31, 1960 - DAMASO DISCANSO, ET AL. v. FELICISIMO GATMAYTAN

    109 Phil 916

  • G.R. No. L-12401 October 31, 1960 - MARCELO STEEL CORP. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    109 Phil 921

  • G.R. No. L-12565 October 31, 1960 - ANTONIO HERAS v. CITY TREASURER OF QUEZON CITY

    109 Phil 930

  • G.R. No. L-13260 October 31, 1960 - LINO P. BERNARDO v. EUFEMIA PASCUAL, ET AL.

    109 Phil 936

  • G.R. No. L-13370 October 31, 1960 - IN RE: CHAN CHEN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS.

    109 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. L-13666 October 31, 1960 - FORTUNATO LAYAGUE, ET AL. v. CONCEPCION PEREZ DE ULGASAN

    109 Phil 945

  • G.R. No. L-13677 October 31, 1960 - HUGH M. HAM v. BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 949

  • G.R. No. L-13875 October 31, 1960 - DANIEL EVANGELISTA v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS OF ILOILO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 957

  • G.R. No. L-13891 October 31, 1960 - JOAQUIN ULPIENDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 964

  • G.R. No. L-13900 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BLAS ABLAO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 976

  • G.R. No. L-14174 October 31, 1960 - PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMERCE v. HIGINIO B. MACADAEG, ET AL.

    109 Phil 981

  • G.R. No. L-14362 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERNANI ACANTO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 993

  • G.R. No. L-14393 October 31, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CANTILAN LUMBER COMPANY

    109 Phil 999

  • G.R. No. L-14474 October 31, 1960 - ONESIMA D. BELEN v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 1008

  • G.R. No. L-14598 October 31, 1960 - MARIANO ACOSTA, ET AL. v. CARMELINO G. ALVENDIA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 1017

  • G.R. No. L-14827 October 31, 1960 - CHUA YENG v. MICHAELA ROMA

    109 Phil 1022

  • G.R. No. L-14902 October 31, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

    109 Phil 1027

  • G.R. No. 15086 October 31, 1960 - NARRA v. FELIX M. MAKASIAR, ETC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 1030

  • G.R. No. L-15178 October 31, 1960 - ROSENDA FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. CATALINO V. FERNANDEZ

    109 Phil 1033

  • G.R. No. L-15234 October 31, 1960 - ANTONIO PIMENTEL v. JOSEFINA GOMEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 1036

  • G.R. No. L-15253 October 31, 1960 - IN RE: ODORE LEWIN v. EMILIO GALANG

    109 Phil 1041

  • G.R. Nos. L-15328-29 October 31, 1960 - RUBEN L. VALERO v. TERESITA L. PARPANA

    109 Phil 1054

  • G.R. No. L-15391 October 31, 1960 - BOARD OF DIRECTORS v. DR. LUIS N. ALANDY

    109 Phil 1058

  • G.R. No. L-15397 October 31, 1960 - FELIPE B. OLLADA v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE

    109 Phil 1072

  • G.R. No. L-15434 October 31, 1960 - DIONISIO NAGRAMPA v. JULIA MARGATE NAGRAMPA

    109 Phil 1077

  • G.R. No. L-15459 October 31, 1960 - UNITED STATES LINES COMPANY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    109 Phil 1081

  • G.R. No. L-15594 October 31, 1960 - RODOLFO CANO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    109 Phil 1086

  • G.R. No. L-15643 October 31, 1960 - LIGGETT & MYERS TOBACCO CORP. v. ASSOCIATED INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC.

    109 Phil 1093

  • G.R. No. L-15695 October 31, 1960 - MATILDE GAERLAN v. CITY COUNCIL OF BAGUIO

    109 Phil 1100

  • G.R. No. L-15697 October 31, 1960 - MARIA SALUD ANGELES v. PEDRO GUEVARA

    109 Phil 1105

  • G.R. No. L-15707 October 31, 1960 - JESUS GUARIÑA v. AGUEDA GUARIÑA-CASAS

    109 Phil 1111

  • G.R. No. L-15745 October 31, 1960 - MIGUEL TOLENTINO v. CEFERINO INCIONG

    109 Phil 1116

  • G.R. No. L-15842 October 31, 1960 - DOÑA NENA MARQUEZ v. TOMAS P. PANGANIBAN

    109 Phil 1121

  • G.R. No. L-15926 October 31, 1960 - BERNABE RELLIN v. AMBROSIO CABlGAS

    109 Phil 1128

  • G.R. No. L-16029 October 31, 1960 - STANDARD VACUUM OIL COMPANY v. LORETO PAZ

    109 Phil 1132

  • G.R. No. L-16098 October 31, 1960 - ANDREA OLARTE v. DIOSDADO ENRIQUEZ

    109 Phil 1137

  • G.R. No. L-16160 October 31, 1960 - MAGDALENA SANGALANG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 1140

  • G.R. Nos. L-16292-94, L-16309 & L-16317-18 October 31, 1960 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MRR., CO. v. YARD CREW UNION

    109 Phil 1143

  • G.R. No. L-16672 October 31, 1960 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION v. JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ

    109 Phil 1152