Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > January 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-24707 January 18, 1968 - JOSE S. CAPISTRANO v. JUAN BOGAR:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-24707. January 18, 1968.]

JOSE S. CAPISTRANO, Petitioner, v. THE HON. JUDGE JUAN BOGAR OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA and ZACARIAS MANABAT, Respondents.

J.C. Espinas & Associates for Petitioner.

Cipriano Cid & Associates for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS; JURISDICTION; QUESTIONS INVOLVING RIGHTS AND CONDITIONS OF MEMBERSHIP IN A LABOR UNION. — Questions involving the rights and conditions of membership in a labor organization under Section 17 of the Industrial Peace Act shall fall within the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations.

2. ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. — The Court of First Instance erred in assuming jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 58912 and in issuing the preliminary injunction prayed for therein, especially since at the time said case was filed, an unfair labor practice case involving the same parties and the same election of officers of the Union de Maquinistas, Fogoneros y Motormen was already filed in the Court of Industrial Relations which thereby acquired complete jurisdiction, to the exclusion of the Court of First Instance.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.P., J.:


As a result of the general annual elections of officers of the Union de Maquinistas, Fogoneros y Motormen held on November 28 to December 4, 1964, the three-man committee on elections of the union proclaimed on December 7, 1964 Jose S. Capistrano as president-elect, stating that he obtained 234 votes, whereas his opponents, Zacarias F. Manabat and Maximo Llanes, obtained 207 and 8 votes, respectively, out of a total of 467 votes cast.

Upon the immediate protest of Zacarias Manabat, a recounting was made, after which the committee invalidated 400 votes, credited Capistrano with only 27 votes and on December 17, 1964 proclaimed Manabat as winner, with 37 votes. Subsequently, Manabat filed his non- subversive affidavits as required by law.

The next day, Capistrano filed a formal protest before the Secretary of Labor. In a letter-motion dated January 7, 1965, Manabat questioned the Secretary of Labor’s jurisdiction on the ground that the main issue was an internal affair of the union, alleging further that Capistrano failed to exhaust internal remedial measures outlined in their constitution and by-laws. Manabat waived the presentation of evidence and submitted the case for decision on his letter-motion. Capistrano presented his evidence.

Meanwhile, on January 5, 1965, Maximo Llanes and 177 union members filed before the Court of Industrial Relations in Manila, a complaint 1 for unfair labor practice, questioning the invalidation of 400 votes cast as a deprivation of the members’ right to vote. Petitioners therein asked the Court of Industrial Relations to determine the elected officers as there were now two sets of officers in the union.

On January 19, 1965, the Department of Labor, declaring itself vested with jurisdiction, declared Capistrano elected after ruling that the invalidation of 400 votes was an undue disenfranchisement of the union members. The 400 votes were invalidated because only the rubber stamp of the secretary appeared therein instead of his signature. This was considered insufficient proof of the alleged fraud during the election, considering that at the time of the election, no objection to the stamped ballots was made.

Manabat, on January 30, 1965; petitioned before Us for a writ of certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction 2 to stop the Department of Labor from further acting on the election case in view of the case filed in the Court of Industrial Relations. We dismissed the said petition on February 2, 1965 "without prejudice to resort if any in the lower court."cralaw virtua1aw library

On February 9, 1965, Manabat filed a petition before the Court of First Instance of Manila for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction 3 against the Registrar of Labor Organizations, the Secretary of Labor and Jose Capistrano, contending that the Department of Labor under Section 17 of R.A. 875, had no jurisdiction to act on Capistrano’s protest, and that only the Court of Industrial Relations had such jurisdiction. He asked that the respondents be enjoined from further entertaining the protest of Capistrano and from implementing their decision on the protest.

Notwithstanding Capistrano’s allegations in his motion to dismiss that under Section 17 of R.A. 875 jurisdiction was vested in the Court of Industrial Relations — especially since there is already an unfair labor practice case before the same involving the same parties and the same election, the Court of First Instance ruled that under Sec. 17 of R.A. 875, it had jurisdiction and issued the injunction prayed for, stating that the issuance of the writ will not hurt anybody considering that counsel for respondents manifested that the latter had no intention of deciding Capistrano’s protest.

Said Court of First Instance denied on June 14, 1965, Capistrano’s motion for reconsideration, pointing out that the consequences feared by Capistrano were not in order in view of the manifestation that the respondents did not intend to proclaim or recognize any of the contestants as elected.

Capistrano filed with Us on July 6, 1965 a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction, praying that the Court of First Instance of Manila be enjoined from proceeding with the afore-stated case and from enforcing the preliminary injunction it issued, on the ground that under Sec. 17 of R.A. 875, the Court of Industrial Relations, not the Court of First Instance, has jurisdiction over the case.

To determine the issue of jurisdiction, the pertinent part of Section 17 of R.A. 875, under which the lower court claimed jurisdiction, must be examined. The first part of the Section provides: "It is hereby declared to be the public policy of the Philippines to encourage the following internal labor organization procedures. A minimum of ten per cent of the members of a labor organization may report an alleged violation of these procedures in their labor organization to the Court. If the Court finds, upon investigation, evidence to substantiate the alleged violation and that efforts to correct the alleged violation through the procedures provided by the labor organization’s constitution or by-laws have been exhausted, the Court shall dispose of the complaint as in ‘unfair labor practice’ cases." The Section then proceeds to enumerate the rights and conditions. It will be noted that while the Section merely states "Court" without specifying which court, Section 2 of the same Act provides:" ‘Court" means the Court of Industrial Relations established by Commonwealth Act Numbered One Hundred and Three as amended, unless another Court shall be specified," Thus, We have already held that questions involving the rights and conditions of membership in a labor organization under Section 17 of the Industrial Peace Act shall fall within the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations. 4

Clearly, therefore, the Court of First Instance erred in taking cognizance of the petition filed by Manabat, especially since at the time the petition was filed therein, the unfair labor practice case was already filed in the Court of Industrial Relations which thereby acquired complete jurisdiction, to the exclusion of the Court of First Instance. 5 Even the premise upon which the Court of First Instance based its grant of the injunction — that the Department of Labor officials had no intention of deciding the controversy between Manabat and Capistrano — was erroneous. The Department of Labor in fact declared Capistrano elected, after ruling that the invalidation of the 400 votes was an improper disenfranchisement of the union members. Consequently, the Court of First Instance also erred in denying the motion for reconsideration.

WHEREFORE, it is hereby declared that the Court of First Instance of Manila has no jurisdiction over its Civil Case No. 58912; said case should therefore be dismissed and the preliminary injunction therein issued, dissolved. No costs.

So ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., J.B.L. Reyes, Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Case No. 342-ULP, p. 38 of the record.

2. L-24081.

3. Case No. 59812.

4. Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa MRR v. Bugay, L-9327, March 30, 1957; 101 Phil. 18; PLASLU v. Ortiz, L-11185, April 23, 1958; 103 Phil. 409.

5. Citizens League of Free Workers v. Abbas, L-21212, Sept. 23, 1966.




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






January-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-23542 January 2, 1968 - JUANA T. VDA. DE RACHO v. MUNICIPALITY OF ILAGAN

  • G.R. No. L-23988 January 7, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LEONARDO S. VILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24922 January 2, 1968 - MELECIO DOREGO, ET AL. v. ARISTON PEREZ

  • G.R. No. L-24108 January 3, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24190 January 8, 1968 - RAFAEL FALCOTELO, ET AL. v. RESTITUTO GALI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24432 January 12, 1968 - NAZARIO EQUIZABAL v. APOLONIO G. MALENIZA

  • G.R. No. L-22294 January 12, 1968 - DIONISIA PARAMI VDA. DE CABASAG v. AMADOR P. SU, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22991 January 16, 1968 - BIENVENIDO CAPULONG v. ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-23293 January 16, 1968 - LUIS R. AYO, JR. v. MELQUIADES G. ILAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24480 January 16, 1968 - LUCRECIO DE GUZMAN, ET AL. v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-22794 January 16, 1968 - RUFO QUEMUEL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22018 January 17, 1968 - APOLONIO GALOFA v. NEE BON SING

  • G.R. No. L-22081 January 17, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTOS M. CABANERO

  • G.R. No. L-22605 January 17, 1968 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-23690 January 17, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO D. MONTEJO

  • G.R. No. L-24230 January 17, 1968 - EUGENIA TORNILLA v. TEODORICA FUENTESPINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24434 January 17, 1968 - PEDRO REGANON, ET AL. v. RUFINO IMPERIAL

  • G.R. No. L-28459 January 17, 1968 - RAFAEL FALCOTELO, ET AL. v. MACARIO ASISTIO

  • G.R. No. L-22518 January 17, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO ATENCIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23707 January 17, 1968 - JOSE A.V. CORPUS v. FEDERICO C. ALIKPALA

  • G.R. No. L-26103 January 17, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELMER ESTRADA

  • G.R. No. L-19255 January 18, 1968 - PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • G.R. No. L-24707 January 18, 1968 - JOSE S. CAPISTRANO v. JUAN BOGAR

  • G.R. No. L-24946 January 18, 1968 - MARTINIANO P. VIVO v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-23116 January 24, 1968 - IN RE: ANTONIO JAO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24287 January 24, 1968 - PHILIPPINE EDUCATION COMPANY, INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-22985 January 24, 1968 - BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. GREGORIO CAGUIMBAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-18546 & L-18547 January 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRUDENCIO OPINIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19752 January 29, 1968 - LAND SETTLEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. AGUSTIN CARLOS

  • G.R. No. L-23555 January 29, 1968 - FLOREÑA TINAGAN v. VALERIO V. ROVIRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22468 January 29, 1968 - PUAHAY LAO v. DIMTOY SUAREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24607 January 29, 1968 - TOMAS TRIA TIRONA v. CITY TREASURER OF MANILA

  • G.R. No. L-24795 January 29, 1968 - PEDRO JIMENEA v. ROMEO G. GUANZON, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20449 January 29, 1968 - ESPERANZA FABIAN, ET AL. v. SILBINA FABIAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28415 January 29, 1968 - ESTRELLO T. ONG v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23012 January 29, 1968 - MIGUEL CUENCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23052 January 29, 1968 - CITY OF MANILA v. GENERO M. TEOTICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28518 January 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO G. PADERNA

  • G.R. No. L-18971 January 29, 1968 - IN RE: ABUNDIO ROTAQUIO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21718 January 29, 1968 - MILAGROS F. VDA. DE FORTEZA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28392 January 29, 1968 - JOSE C. AQUINO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27268 January 29, 1968 - JUANITA JUAN-MARCELO, ET AL. v. GO KIM PAH, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22145 January 30, 1968 - A. M. RAYMUNDO & CO. v. BENITO SYMACO

  • G.R. No. L-22686 January 30, 1968 - BERNARDO JOCSON, ET AL. v. REDENCION GLORIOSO

  • G.R. No. L-24073 January 30, 1968 - PAMPANGA SUGAR MILLS v. REGINA GALANG VDA. DE ESPELETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27583 January 30, 1968 - MARGARITO J. LOFRANCO v. JESUS JIMENEZ, SR.

  • G.R. No. L-19565 January 30, 1968 - ESTRELLA DE LA CRUZ v. SEVERINO DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-20316 January 30, 1968 - LEONCIA CABRERA DE CHUATOCO v. GREGORIO ARAGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21855 January 30, 1968 - IN RE: ANDRES SINGSON v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22973 January 30, 1968 - MAMBULAO LUMBER COMPANY v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22215 January 30, 1968 - GONZALO PUYAT & SONS, INC. v. PEDRO LABAYO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23702 January 30, 1968 - MARIA VILLAFLOR v. ARTURO REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23965 January 30, 1968 - FLOREÑA TINAGAN v. JOSE PERLAS, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-21423 January 31, 1968 - GO KIONG OCHURA, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23424 January 31, 1968 - LOURDES ARCUINO, ET AL. v. RUFINA APARIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22968 January 31, 1968 - BENEDICTO BALUYOT, ET AL. v. EULOGIO E. VENEGAS

  • G.R. No. L-24859 January 31, 1968 - PABLO R. AQUINO v. GENERAL MANAGER OF THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-25083 January 31, 1968 - JUSTINO QUETULIO, ET AL. v. NENA Q. DE LA CUESTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20387 January 31, 1968 - JESUS P. MORFE v. AMELITO R. MUTUC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23170 January 31, 1968 - ALBINA DE LOS SANTOS v. ALEJANDRO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23279 January 31, 1968 - ALEJANDRA CUARTO v. ESTELITA DE LUNA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23980 January 31, 1968 - JULIA SAN BUENAVENTURA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25472 January 31, 1968 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. ANGELA PURUGANAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24528 January 31, 1968 - DOMINGO T. LAO v. JOSE MOYA

  • G.R. No. L-22061 January 31, 1968 - DALMACIO URTULA, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-27776 January 31, 1968 - AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-28476 January 31, 1968 - ALEJANDRO REYES v. ANATALIO REYES, ET AL.