Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > April 1966 Decisions > G.R. No. L-23294 April 30, 1966 NAMARCO EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS ASS’N. v. EMILIANO TABIGNE, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-23294. April 30, 1966.]

NAMARCO EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE JUDGE EMILIANO TABIGNE OF THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and THE NATIONAL MARKETING CORPORATION, Respondents.

Jose C. Espinas & Associates for Petitioner.

Government Corporate Counsel Tomas P. Matic, Jr., Assistant Government Corporate Counsel Lorenzo R. Mosqueda and Trial Attorney Manuel M. Lazaro for Respondents.


D E C I S I O N


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


This is a petition for certiorari with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction filed originally with this Court by petitioner Namarco Employees and Workers Association, hereinafter referred to as NEWA for short, to restrain respondent Associate Judge, Hon. Emiliano C. Tabigne, of the Court of Industrial Relations from enforcing his second and temporary restraining order dated August 3, 1964, issued in its CIR Case No. 149-Inj., at the instance of private respondent National Marketing Corporation, hereinafter referred to as NAMARCO. This Court gave due course to the petition and required respondents to answer; however, it did not issue the preliminary injunction prayed for.

As disclosed by the record, the facts are:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On July 8, 1964, herein petitioner NEWA declared a strike against respondent NAMARCO and established picket lines along the premises of the principal office and business establishment of the latter, located at Muelle de la Industria, Binondo, Manila. On July 16, 1964, NAMARCO filed a charge for unfair labor practice against NEWA before the Industrial Court, alleging illegality of the strike staged by the latter. This charged was docketed as CIR Case No. 8-ULP (Annex "B", respondent NAMARCO’s answer, record, pp. 59-61). On the same date, NAMARCO also filed, in accordance with Section 9 (d) of Republic Act No. 875, a verified urgent ex-parte petition for injunction to restrain and enjoin NEWA and its union members from committing alleged acts of coercion and intimidation in connection with the conduct of said strike. This petition was docketed as CIR Case No. 149-Inj. (Annex "A", NEWA’s petition; record, pp. 11-15), for which the corresponding summons was served on NEWA on July 21, 1964 Annex "B", NEWA’s petition; record, p. 16). On July 24, 1964, NEWA answered said petition (Annex "D", NEWA’s petition; record, pp. 27-30).

In the meantime, the Prosecution Division of the Industrial Court conducted a preliminary investigation of the unfair labor practice charge, docketed as CIR Case No. 8-ULP; and on July 18, 1964, its acting Chief Prosecutor presented a complaint for unfair labor practice against NEWA before the Industrial Court, which was docketed as CIR Case No. 4257-ULP (Annex "C", NAMARCO’s answer; record, pp. 62-66). Summons on this complaint was served on NEWA on August 5, 1964 (Annex "1", petitioner NEWA’s memorandum; record, p. 83).

After an ex parte hearing and reception of evidence on the petition for injunction, docketed as CIR Case No. 149-Inj., respondent Judge issued, on July 20, 1964, his first restraining order enjoining NEWA and its union members from committing certain acts specified in said order to be effective only for five (6) days from notice to NEWA, and which order was actually received by the latter on July 22, 1964 (Annex "C", NEWA’s petition; record, pp. 17-26). NEWA did not question the validity or propriety of the issuance of the foregoing restraining order.

On July 30, 1964, NAMARCO filed its second verified urgent ex parte petition for the issuance of another restraining order, alleging, among other things, that on the fifth day of effectivity of the first restraining order and in open defiance and disobedience of the authority of the Industrial Court, NEWA, its union members and sympathizers, unlawfully and illegally, prevented the enforcement of said order thereby rendering it nugatory and ineffective.

Respondent Judge heard this second petition and allowed NAMARCO to present its evidence ex parte in support thereof; and on August 3, 1964, he issued the second restraining order, to be effective only for five (5) days from receipt by NEWA, notice of which (order) NEWA received on the same day (Annex "E", NEWA’s petition; record, pp. 31-39).

The day following, August 4, 1964, NEWA resorted to this Court on a petition for certiorari questioning the validity of the issuance of the second restraining order.

Two reasons constrain Us to deny the present petition for certiorari without considering its merits.

First, it is well settled that only an award, order or decision of the CIR in banc, and not that of any of its Judges, is appealable to this Court (Broce v. CIR, G.R. No. L-12367, October 28, 1959; 56 O.G. 7445). Petitioner, therefore, should have resorted first to the Court of Industrial Relations in banc before coming to this Court. While, under its rules, a motion for reconsideration to the full court requires a period for the opposing party’s answer before the motion may be acted upon, there is no law prohibiting or divesting the CIR in banc from exercising in the meantime, and upon proper application, the power to stay or suspend the enforcement of any order, ruling or decision of any of its trial judges, pending resolution of the motion to reconsider, where such stay is imperative to prevent reconsideration from becoming nugatory. This power is implied in the right of the Industrial Court in banc to affirm, alter, modify or reverse the orders, rulings or decisions of any of its trial judges (Sec. 20, Com. Act No. 103, as amended; Connell Bros. Co. [Phil.] v. NLU, G.R. No. L-3631 June 30, 1956; Luzon Stevedoring Co., Inc. v. Luzon Marine Department Union, G.R. No. L-9665, April 29, 1957). On this score, failure to present a motion to reconsider before the CIR in banc is fatal to the instant petition.

Second, the petition should be denied because the dispute has already become moot and academic, it appearing that, on September 4, 1964 (after the case was filed here), the parties entered into a return-to-work agreement (Annex "A", respondent NAMARCO’s memorandum; record, pp. 99-100), thereby ending the strike from which these incidents arose,

Wherefore, the present petition for certiorari should be, as it is hereby, dismissed. With costs against petitioner NEWA.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, J.P. Bengzon, Zaldivar and Sanchez, 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






April-1966 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-21752 April 25, 1966 SIMEON HIDALGO v. LA TONDEÑA, INC., ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 377 April 29, 1966 CONCEPCION BOLIVAR v. ABELARDO M. SIMBOL

  • G.R. No. L-15471 April 29, 1966 BENJAMIN T. PONCE v. HQTRS., PHIL. ARMY EFFICIENCY AND SEPARATION BOARD

  • G.R. No. L-18067 April 29, 1966 PEDRO F. NACIONALES v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18570 April 29, 1966 BARTOLOME GUIRAO v. EVARISTO VER

  • G.R. No. L-19161 April 29, 1966 MLA. RAILROAD CO. v. MACARIA BALLESTEROS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19327 April 29, 1966 AMADO BELLA JARO v. ELPIDIO VALENCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19558 April 29, 1966 LA MALLORCA, ET AL. v. CIRILO D. MENDIOLA

  • G.R. No. L-19576 April 29, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MACONDRAY & CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19609 April 29, 1966 JOSE NEGRE v. CABAHUG SHIPPING & CO.

  • G.R. No. L-19645 April 29, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MARIA (MARUJA) P. VDA. DE YULO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19647 April 29, 1966 IN RE: BENEDICTO TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20480 April 29, 1966 CLARA SALAZAR, ET AL. v. FILEMON Q. ORTIZANO

  • G.R. No. L-20709 April 29, 1966 IN RE: ANDRONICO AUGUSTO DY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20710 April 29, 1966 IN RE: PEREGRINA TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21072 April 29, 1966 BRUNO TORRALBA, ET AL. v. ZACARIAS ROSALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21194 April 29, 1966 HAW LIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21285 April 29, 1966 MANUFACTURER’S DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. YU SIU LIONG

  • G.R. No. L-21321 April 29, 1966 PAFLU v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

  • G.R. No. L-19581 April 29, 1966 IN RE: SUSANO SY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19847 April 29, 1966 IN RE: GUADALUPE UY SIOCO NACAGUE TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19502 April 29, 1966 IN RE: PEDRO CO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21907 April 29, 1966 ATLANTIC MUTUAL INS. CO., ET AL. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21457 and L-21461 April 29, 1966 PAFLU v. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-23082 April 29, 1966 PAFLU v. DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21778 April 29, 1966 IN RE: CHAN PENG HIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21895 April 29, 1966 IN RE: AGUEDA GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21762 April 29, 1966 IN RE: LEON C. SO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21078 April 29, 1966 IN RE: ANTONIO L. CO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20715 April 29, 1966 IN RE: WAYNE CHANG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20510 April 29, 1966 FELICIDAD TOLENTINO v. EULOGIA BIGORNIA CARDENAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20397 April 29, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE MAGLANOC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20188 April 29, 1966 PETER C. SANTOS v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20159 April 29, 1966 MIGUEL GERMANO, ET AL. v. ERENEO SURITA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20016 April 29, 1966 IN RE: EMMANUEL YU NAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21446 April 29, 1966 IN RE: LEE TIT v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21452 April 29, 1966 IN RE: BENITO KO BOK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21477-81 April 29, 1966 FRANCISCA VILUAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21493-94 April 29, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO G. CAINGLET

  • G.R. No. L-21516 April 29, 1966 BUTUAN SAWMILL, INC. v. CITY OF BUTUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21555 April 29, 1966 DOROTEA BALMEO v. CRISANTO ARAGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21593 April 29, 1966 RAYMUNDA S. DIGRAN v. AUDITOR GENERAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21695 April 29, 1966 ILDEFONSO AGREDA, ET AL. v. JESUS S. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21812 April 29, 1966 PAZ TORRES DE CONEJERO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22117 April 29, 1966 PAMPANGA SUGAR DEV. CO., INC. v. DONATO QUIROZ

  • G.R. No. L-22120 April 29, 1966 ILUMINADO MOTUS, ET AL. v. CFI OF RIZAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22220 April 29, 1966 A. D. SANTOS, INC. v. CONCHITA VDA. DE SAPON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22454 April 29, 1966 FIREMAN’S FUND INS. CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22594 April 29, 1966 CECILIA RAPADAZ VDA. DE RAPISURA v. NICANOR NICOLAS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 241 April 30, 1966 REBECCA M. MIRANDA v. FRANCISCO FUENTES

  • G.R. No. L-16969 April 30, 1966 R. MARINO CORPUS v. MIGUEL CUADERNO, SR.

  • G.R. No. L-17037 April 30, 1966 EAST ASIATIC CO., LTD., ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18032 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GORGONIO SERDEÑA

  • G.R. No. L-18308 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS TARUC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-15823-26 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALBAL SIGAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18867 April 30, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CESARIO OCTOBRE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19397 April 30, 1966 TEODORA MATIAS DE BUENCAMINO, ET AL. v. MARIA DIZON DE MATIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19613 April 30, 1966 ALFONSO G. LOPEZ v. FILIPINAS COMPANIA DE SEGUROS

  • G.R. No. L-19869 April 30, 1966 PATRICIO M. MIGUEL v. JOSE C. ZULUETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20018 April 30, 1966 CHIU HAP CHIU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20155 April 30, 1966 LEXAL PURE DRUG LAB. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20687 April 30, 1966 MAXIMINO VALDEPENAS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20721 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN ALAGAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21034 April 30, 1966 IN RE: THOMAS FALLON v. EMILIO CAMON

  • G.R. No. L-21139 April 30, 1966 CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21440 April 30, 1966 SUN BROS. APPLIANCES, INC. v. ANGEL AL. CALUNTAD

  • G.R. No. L-21460 April 30, 1966 AMERICAN MACHINERY & PARTS MANUFACTURING CO., INC. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21471 April 30, 1966 VICENTE S. DY REYES, ET AL. v. FRUCTUOSO ORTEGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20875 April 30, 1966 RIZAL SURETY & INS. CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21623 April 30, 1966 RIZAL SURETY & INS. CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21760 April 30, 1966 SWITZERLAND GEN. INS. CO., LTD. v. JAVA PACIFIC & HOEGH LINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21685 April 30, 1966 CLETO ASPREC v. VICTORIANO ITCHON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21693 April 30, 1966 PROCOPIO F. ELEAZAR v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • G.R. No. L-21810 April 30, 1966 ARMANDO ESPERANZA v. ANDRES CASTILLO

  • G.R. No. L-22085 April 30, 1966 IN RE: SEGUNDA VDA. DE GAMIR, ET AL. v. THELMA G. SAWAMOTO

  • G.R. No. L-22143 April 30, 1966 LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO. v. ANTONIO TIONGSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22192 April 30, 1966 IN RE: VIRGILIO LIM TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22210 April 30, 1966 PILAR T. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. DAMIAN L. JIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22305 April 30, 1966 PRAXEDES GABRIEL, ET AL. v. ANDRES REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23294 April 30, 1966 NAMARCO EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS ASS’N. v. EMILIANO TABIGNE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23812 April 30, 1966 PRIMO T. OCAMPO, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO DUQUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21191 April 30, 1966 EVERETT STEAMSHIP CORP. v. MUNICIPALITY OF MEDINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20022 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GLICERIO SALVACION

  • G.R. No. L-20905 April 30, 1966 MARTA A. VDA. DE CUIZON v. EMILIANO ORTIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20028 & L-20029 April 30, 1966 GREGORIO ATIENZA, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18514 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORLANDO TANIA, ET AL.