Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > March 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-26213 March 27, 1968 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS (PAFLU), ET AL. v. PIO R. MARCOS:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-26213. March 27, 1968.]

PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS (PAFLU) and BAGUIO AMALGAMATED RADIO ANNOUNCERS AND EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PAFLU), Petitioners, v. HON. PIO R. MARCOS, as District Judge of the Court of First Instance of the City of Baguio, and RADIO PHILIPPINES NETWORK, INC., represented by NELLIE PEDROSO, Respondents.

Cipriano Cid & Associates and Benjamin C. Rillera, for Petitioners.

Eliseo M. Cruz for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS; JURISDICTION; LABOR DISPUTE CONNECTED WITH UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE; HOW ESTABLISHED. — A labor dispute involving an unfair labor practice is exclusively cognizable by the Court of Industrial Relations. The Court of First Instance has no jurisdiction. To establish this, there must be a showing - not mere allegation — that the labor dispute either arose out of, or is connected or interwoven with the unfair labor practices. The mere filing of an unfair labor practice charge in the Court of Industrial Relations does not establish this connection.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; COMPETENT AND SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE NECESSARY. — There is no competent and satisfactory showing that the labor dispute object of Civil Case 1697 was connected or interwoven with the acts constituting unfair labor practice covered in case 1159-ULP filed before the Court of Industrial Relations. The connection could not even be inferred from the charge couched in general language. Petitioners could have established this connection in a motion for reconsideration which they should have filed first before resorting to this Court.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.P., J.:


Petitioner Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions is a legitimate labor organization operating as a federation of trade unions. Affiliated to it is co-petitioner Baguio Amalgamated Radio Announcers and Employees Association, a labor organization composed of the rank and file employees of Radio Stations DZBS and DZAH in Baguio City owned and operated by private respondent Radio Philippines Network, Inc.

On June 17, 1966, respondent filed Civil Case 1697 in the Court of First Instance of Baguio, for injunction with damages, alleging principally that co-petitioner and its members staged an illegal strike that very morning and." . . have picketed the working premises of the DZBS and DZAH, padlocked the doors, cut telephone lines, removed switches, damage[d] equipment of the plaintiff and threaten[ed] to do further damage to the property of the plaintiff." The verified complaint also contained the requisite allegations for the issuance of preliminary injunction in labor disputes. 1

The following day, June 18, 1966, the lower court issued an order requiring co-petitioner union to answer and appear before it on June 20, 1966 to show cause why preliminary injunction should not issue.

On June 20, 1966, co-petitioner union filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, alleging that the present labor dispute was connected with an unfair labor practice charge previously filed by petitioner on May 22, 1966 against respondent in the Court of Industrial Relations for alleged violation of Sec. 4(a)(1) and (2) of Republic Act 875.

By an order of even date, the lower court resolved the motion as follows: 2

"Finding the Motion to Dismiss to be without merit, the Court hereby denies it.

"Both parties agree, after counsel for defendants had announced his intention to appeal this order to the Supreme Court, and the Court hereby orders, that defendants or any of the members of the PAFLU shall not molest nor prohibit the officials of plaintiff or any of its non-striking employees when entering or getting out of the premises of plaintiff; that defendants shall not destroy or cause any damage to the properties of plaintiff in the premises in question; that defendants shall not coerce or threaten any person in the premises; and that the alleged two scabs shall not perform any announcing work in the radio station nor do the duties of technicians except to guard and keep maintenance work on the equipment of plaintiff, in the meantime that this case is pending determination."cralaw virtua1aw library

Without asking for a reconsideration of the above-quoted order, petitioners instituted the present special civil action of certiorari with preliminary injunction. The petition was given due course and this Court issued preliminary injunction.

Petitioners admit that the order of June 20, 1966 did not even amount to a restraining order issued by the lower court. They raise no question regarding the same. The only issue tendered is whether the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction over Civil Case 1697.

A labor dispute involving an unfair labor practice is exclusively cognizable by the Court of Industrial Relations. 3 The Court of First Instance has no jurisdiction. To establish this, however, there must be a showing — not mere allegation — that the labor dispute either arose out of, or is connected or interwoven with the unfair labor practice. The mere filing of an unfair labor practice charge in the Court of Industrial Relations does not, per se, establish the connection. So We ruled in United Pepsi-Cola Sales Organization v. Hon. Canizares, 102 Phil. 887, 891, thru the pen of Justice J.B.L. Reyes —

"We see nothing in the Company’s complaint and petition for preliminary injunction that could apprise or warn the court below that an unfair labor practice case was involved. Nor can the lack of jurisdiction of the lower court be simply assumed from the bare fact that an unfair labor practice case had been filed with the Court of Industrial Relations. The criterion, to bring the case under the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court, is whether the acts complained of in the petition for injunction arose out of, or are connected or interwoven with, the unfair labor practice case (PAFLU v. Caluag, G.R. L-9104, Sept. 10, 1956), a question of fact that should be brought to the attention of the court a quo to enable it to pass upon the issue whether it has jurisdiction or not over the case . . ." (Emphasis supplied)

The rule above-stated, based on the foregoing pronouncement, was followed and reaffirmed in four subsequent cases wherein the lack of jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance was upheld because of the showing that the labor dispute subject of the civil case was connected with the unfair labor practices charged. In ERLANGER & GALINGER v. ERLANGER & GALINGER EMPLOYEES ASS’N., 104 Phil. 17, the petitioner company admitted to the lower court that the labor dispute involved an unfair labor practice. The records also disclosed that the strike and picketing arose from the unfair labor practice charges levelled against petitioner company. In NATIONAL MINES & ALLIED WORKERS’ UNION v. HON. ILAO, L-16884, Jan. 31, 1963, the unfair labor practice charge for discrimination was based particularly on the alleged unjust dismissal of one Jorge Patinio, which dismissal caused the petitioning union to stage a picket, thereby creating a labor dispute which respondent company sought to enjoin in a civil case. In B.C.I. EMPLOYEES & WORKERS UNION v. HON. MARCOS, L-21016, July 30, 1965, the unfair labor practice charges were based on the alleged unlawful dismissal of union members because of union activities and the records showed that one of the reasons for the strike which was sought to be enjoined was "discrimination against union members in enforcement of disciplinary actions." Finally, in CITIZENS’ LEAGUE OF FREE WORKERS v. HON. ABBAS, L-21212, Sept. 23, 1966, the complaint itself in the civil case contained the allegation that plaintiff’s refusal to recognize their auto-calesa drivers as employees and bargain with them as such was the cause of the strike staged by the latter.

In the case at bar, except for the bare allegation in co- petitioner’s motion to dismiss filed before the lower court and the controverted allegations in par. IV of the petition, there is no competent and satisfactory showing that the labor dispute object of Civil Case 1697 was connected or interwoven with the acts constituting unfair labor practice covered in Case 1159-ULP filed in the Court of Industrial Relations. The connection could not even be inferred from the charge which was couched in general language. Petitioners could very well have established this connection in a motion for reconsideration which they should have filed first before resorting to this Court. Withal, there is nothing to prevent petitioners from showing said connection before the lower court in the proceedings to follow. But the petition here must be dismissed for now.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby dismissed and the preliminary injunction heretofore issued is revoked and set aside. Costs against petitioners. So ordered.

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

Concepcion, C.J., is on leave.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, pp. 8-9.

2. Rollo, p. 14.

3. Sec. 5(a), Republic Act 875.




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-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-21738 March 1, 1968 - IN RE: CHOA EK YONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21881 March 1, 1968 - PACIFIC OXYGEN & ACETYLENE COMPANY v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-23066 March 1, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE S. UMALI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23426 March 1, 1968 - LEOPOLDO SY-QUIA, ET AL. v. MARY MARSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22667 March 1, 1968 - JOSE DE ASIS, ET AL. v. ANGELINA DUMADAUG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24115 March 1, 1968 - EUFEMIA V. SHAFFER v. VIRGINIA G. PALMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25175 March 1, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIMPLICIANO SORIA

  • G.R. No. L-26082 March 1, 1968 - NORBERTO DE LA REA v. ABELARDO SUBIDO

  • G.R. No. L-27030 March 6, 1968 - PABLO GONZAGA, ET AL. v. MARTINIANO P. VIVO

  • G.R. No. L-28473 March 6, 1968 - TAHIR LIDASAN v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28598 March 12, 1968 - NAGA TAGORANAO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28725 March 12, 1968 - BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY v. JOSUE L. CADIAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20865 March 13, 1968 - ASELA P. TACTAQUIN v. JOSE B. PALILEO

  • G.R. No. L-22485 March 13, 1968 - CONSUELO V. CALO v. AJAX INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED

  • G.R. No. L-23351 March 13, 1968 - CIRILO PAREDES v. JOSE L. ESPINO

  • G.R. No. L-23718 March 13, 1968 - JUSTINO LUCERO v. LEON P. DACAYO

  • G.R. No. L-24213 March 13, 1968 - VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25420 March 13, 1968 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. FREE TELEPHONE WORKERS UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25460 March 13, 1968 - INOCENCIO C. TAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-26185 March 13, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFORIANO CESAR

  • G.R. No. L-26437 March 13, 1968 - RAQUEL G. DOCE v. BRANCH II OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF QUEZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26585 March 13, 1968 - NATIONAL MARKETING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-25738 March 14, 1968 - SILVERIO CAGAMPANG v. FLAVIANO MORANO

  • G.R. No. L-25001 March 15, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO B. ALBAPARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21610 March 15, 1968 - CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO v. DON PEDRO SECURITY GUARDS UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23912 March 15, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. JOSE CONCEPCION

  • G.R. No. L-19911 March 15, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SERVICE v. JOSE S. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. L-22997 March 15, 1968 - PABLO C. MONTALBAN, ET AL. v. GERARDO MAXIMO

  • G.R. No. L-25052 March 15, 1968 - DATU MARIGA DIRAMPATEN v. HADJI MADKI ALONTO

  • G.R. No. L-25302 March 15, 1968 - ABUNDIO MATILLANO, ET AL. v. SEVERIANO DE LEON

  • G.R. No. L-25403 March 15, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS A. CATALINO

  • G.R. No. L-26331 March 15, 1968 - BALBINO PAMINTUAN, ET AL. v. EMMANUEL M. MUÑOZ

  • G.R. Nos. L-20662 & L-20663 March 19, 1968 - PHILIPPINE MARlNE OFFICERS’ GUILD v. COMPAÑIA MARITIMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24466 March 19, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME CAPITO @ JIMMY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22486 March 20, 1968 - TEODORO ALMIROL v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF AGUSAN

  • G.R. No. L-23586 March 20, 1968 - A.D. SANTOS, INC. v. VENTURA VASQUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-24826 March 20, 1968 - ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY v. MACONDRAY & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24918 March 20, 1968 - FELIX DE VILLA v. ANACLETO TRINIDAD, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25939 March 20, 1968 - REPARATIONS COMMISSION v. JESUS P. MORFE

  • G.R. No. L-27106 March 20, 1968 - PALANAN LUMBER & PLYWOOD CO., INC., ET AL. v. MANUEL ARRANZ

  • G.R. Nos. L-20589-90 March 21, 1968 - ERNESTO DEL ROSARIO v. VICTORINO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22231 March 21, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELO PAAT

  • G.R. No. L-23565 March 21, 1968 - INSULAR LIFE INSURANCE CO., LTD. v. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25640 March 21, 1968 - VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26538 March 21, 1968 - MELECIO ROSARIO, ET AL. v. TAYUG RURAL BANK, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-26922 and 26923 March 21, 1968 - EUFRACIO FAGTANAC, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 101 March 27, 1968 - EMETERIO A. BUYCO, ET AL. v. MARIANO A. ZOSA

  • G.R. No. L-19378 March 27, 1968 - ACOJE MINING COMPANY, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20046 March 27, 1968 - ROMEO PAYLAGO, ET AL. v. INES PASTRANA JARABE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22265 March 27, 1968 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. GOODRICH INTERNATIONAL RUBBER CO.

  • G.R. No. L-22984 March 27, 1968 - MARGARITO SARONA, ET AL. v. FELIPE VILLEGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23467 March 27, 1968 - AMALGAMATED LABORERS’ ASSOCIATION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23489 March 27, 1968 - JULIAN ABANA v. FRANCISCO QUISUMBING

  • G.R. Nos. L-24123, L-24124, L-24125 & L-24126 March 27, 1968 - GREGORIO ROBLES v. CONCEPCION FERNANDO BLAYLOCK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25471 March 27, 1968 - BENGUET CONSOLIDATED, INC., ET AL. v. BCI EMPLOYEES & WORKERS UNION-PAFLU, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25513 March 27, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSAURO C. DIONISIO

  • G.R. No. L-25676 March 27, 1968 - ROSENDA A. DE NUQUI, ET AL. v. ILDEFONSO D. YAP

  • G.R. No. L-26213 March 27, 1968 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS (PAFLU), ET AL. v. PIO R. MARCOS

  • G.R. Nos. L-28550 to L-28552 March 27, 1968 - PEDRO R. DIZON v. TITO V. TIZON

  • G.R. No. L-28563 March 27, 1968 - GOV. PEDRO R. DIZON v. HON. TITO V. TIZON

  • G.R. No. L-21196 March 28, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELPIDIO BELCHEZ

  • G.R. No. L-22535 March 28, 1968 - ALFREDO VILLARUEL v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24440 March 28, 1968 - PROVINCE OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE v. CITY OF ZAMBOANGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24660 March 28, 1968 - PEDRO VIDAL, ET AL. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-27757 March 28, 1968 - RICARDO DEQUITO v. LEOPOLDO LOPEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20477 March 29, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX B. ACEBEDO

  • G.R. No. L-20802 March 29, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. REPUBLIC SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-21890 March 29, 1968 - MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22062 March 29, 1968 - GREGORIO Y. ROMERO v. MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF BOLJOON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22759 March 29, 1968 - MANUEL R. JIMENEZ v. ALBERTO V. AVERIA

  • G.R. No. L-25366 March 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE BUAN

  • G.R. No. L-25475 March 29, 1968 - FELICIDAD REYES-TALAG v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LAGUNA

  • G.R. No. L-26830 March 29, 1968 - CIPRIANO A. FALCON, ET AL. v. FELICIANO OROBIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23375 March 30, 1968 - FRANCISCO ORFIDA v. PEDRO PANUELOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28539 March 30, 1968 - SALVADOR Q. PEDIDO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.