Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1978 > August 1978 Decisions > G.R. No. L-47848 August 23, 1978 - TABLANTE-TUNGOL ENTERPRISES v. CARMELO C. NORIEL, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-47848. August 23, 1978.]

TABLANTE-TUNGOL ENTERPRISES, Petitioner, v. HON. CARMELO C. NORIEL, ELISEO E. PEÑAFLOR and ASSOCIATION OF DEMOCRATIC LABOR ORGANIZATION, Respondents.

SYNOPSIS


Petitioner, after two unsuccessful attempts to prevent collective bargaining with respondent union, filed this certiorari proceeding alleging that public respondents should have cancelled the registration and permit of respondent labor organization as it had engaged in an illegal strike. It based its contention on P.D. No. 823 and Article 239 of the New Labor Code that cancellation of registration follows from "any activity prohibited by law."cralaw virtua1aw library

The Solicitor General, in his Comment claimed that the argument proferred was false and misleading as the law should not be interpreted to include an illegal strike engaged into by any union. The phrase ‘or otherwise engaging in any activity prohibited by law’ should be construed to mean such activity engaged into by a union that par takes of the nature of a labor contractor or ‘cabo’ system and respondent union is not engaged in any such activity. Subsequently, petitioner and private respondent filed a joint motion to dismiss alleging that they have threshed-out their respective disputes.

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for being moot and academic.


SYLLABUS


1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; PROTECTION TO LABOR; LABOR UNIONS; ENGAGING IN ILLEGAL STRIKE NOT A GROUND FOR DENIAL OR CANCELLATION OF UNION REGISTRATION; NOSCITUR A SOCIIS AND EJUSDEM GENERIS. — Article 239 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended, and Section 6 (c) of Rule II, Book V, of the Rules and Regulations implementing the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended mentions as among the grounds for cancellation or denial of the application for union registration. The following shall constitute grounds for cancellation of union registration" x x x "Acting as labor contractor or engaging in the "cabo" system, or otherwise engaging in any activity prohibited by law. This provision should not be interpreted or construed to include all illegal strike engaged into by any union. This is so because the phrase ‘or otherwise engaging in any activity prohibited by law’ should be construed to mean such activity engaged into by a union that par takes of the nature of a labor contractor or ‘cabo’ system. The law does not intend to include in the said phrase illegally declared strike simply because strike per se is legal. Also, if the law intends to include illegally declared strike, the same could have been expressly placed therein as had been previously done in Presidential Decree No. 823.

2. CERTIORARI AND MANDAMUS; AMICABLE SETTLEMENT OF THE ISSUES RAISED RENDERS THE PETITION MOOT AND ACADEMIC. — Where both parties have threshed-out their respective disputes and have found ways and means to settle the issues raised in the petition, the same is to be dismissed on the ground that it is moot and academic.


R E S O L U T I O N


FERNANDO, J.:


Petitioner Tablante-Tungol Enterprises, resolute in its determination not to bargain collectively with private respondent, Association of Democratic Labor Organization, has once again filed a certiorari proceeding against respondents Director Carmelo C. Noriel, Bureau of Labor Relations, and the Chief of its Med-Arbiter Section, Regional Office No. 3, Eliseo Peñaflor. The first attempt, 1 embodied in a certiorari and prohibition petition dated May 3, 1976, to set aside a resolution of respondent Noriel ordering a certification election, was dismissed in a minute resolution of May 12, 1976 2 for lack of merit. The second petition for certiorari was filed on December 8, 1976, 3 this time to nullify a certification election held on May 26, 1976, wherein private respondent 4 was unanimously chosen as the collective bargaining representative. 5 For obvious lack of merit, it was likewise dismissed in a resolution of November 18, 1977. 6 In this certiorari proceeding, it was alleged that public respondents should have cancelled the registration and permit of private respondent labor organization as private respondent labor union had engaged in an illegal strike. That was the novel issue raised in this petition. Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, 7 in his exhaustive Comment, considered as the answer, found no merit in such an allegation and sustained the action of respondent public officials.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Petitioner is quite insistent that private respondent labor union having engaged in an illegal strike, its registration permit must be cancelled. It based its contention on the relevant section of Presidential Decree No. 823. 8 It did admit that as amended by Presidential Decree No. 849, there is no mention of such a penalty. It now reads in full: "Violation of any provision thereof shall be punished by a fine of P1,000 to P10,000 and/or imprisonment of 1 year to 5 years. Any person violating any provision of Presidential Decree No. 823 shall be dealt with under General Order No. 2-A and General Order No. 49." 9

Petitioner, nonetheless, would seek to import a semblance of plausibility to its claim by the assertion that the Labor Code itself provides, in another section, that cancellation of registration follows from "any activity prohibited by law." 10 The argument is false and misleading according to the Comment of the Solicitor General. Thus: "By this amendatory law, it is evident that no cause of action exists which will warrant the cancellation of [Association of Democratic Labor Organization’s] permit and registration. Of course, petitioner tried to evade said issue by relying on Article 240 (e) and Article 242 (p) of the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended. Let us examine its legal contention on this matter. For expediency, we quote in entirety the aforesaid Article relied upon by the petitioner for cancellation of the registration and permit of the union: ‘Article 239. Ground for cancellation of union registration. The following shall constitute grounds for cancellation of union registration: . . . (e) Acting as a labor contractor or engaging in the "cabo" system, or otherwise engaging in any activity prohibited by law. Suppletory to the above provision is Section 6 (c) of Rule II, Book V of the Rules and Regulations implementing the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended, which reads as follows: ‘Section 6. Denial of Registration of local unions — The Regional Office may deny the application for registration on any of the following grounds: . . . (c) Engaging in the "cabo" system or other illegal practices.’ It is a fact that [Association of Democratic Labor Organization] is not a labor contractor or is it engaged in the ‘cabo’ system or is it otherwise engaged in any activity of such nature which is prohibited by law. The above-quoted article should not be interpreted or construed to include an illegal strike engaged into by any union. This is so because the phrase ‘or otherwise engaging in any activity prohibited by law’ should be construed to mean such activity engaged into by a union that par takes of the nature of a labor contractor or ‘cabo’ system. The law does not intend to include in the said phrase illegally declared strike simply because strike per se is legal. Also, if the law intends to include illegally declared strike, the same could have been expressly placed therein as had been previously done in Presidential Decree No. 823." 11 Clearly, an awareness of the relevance of the maxims noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis ought to have cautioned counsel for petitioner to shy away from this approach.

The realization must have dawned on petitioner’s counsel, Ramos L. Cura, whose abilities could have been enlisted for a more worthwhile cause, that the petition filed by him hardly has any prospect for success. The Comment of Solicitor General Mendoza was filed on July 12, 1978. Then came, less than a month later, August 3, 1978 to be exact, a joint motion to dismiss filed by petitioner and private Respondent. It alleges: "1. That, or February 27, 1978, petitioners filed with this Honorable Court a petition for certiorari and mandamus; 2. That, after the filing of the aforesaid petition, the parties through their respective representatives/counsel, met for the purpose of amicable settlement of the issues raised in the aforesaid petition, 3. That, both parties have threshed-out their respective disputes and have found ways and means which would render the above-entitled case moot and academic; 4. That, both parties are no longer interested in the outcome/result of this case and pray of this Honorable Court to dismiss it for being moot and academic." 12 The prayer is for the dismissal of the petition on the ground that it is moot and academic.chanrobles law library

WHEREFORE, this petition for certiorari is dismissed for being moot and academic.

Barredo, Antonio, Aquino and Santos, JJ., concur.

Concepcion Jr., J., took no part.

Endnotes:



1. L-43701, Tablante-Tungol Enterprises v. Bureau of Labor Relations and Regional Office No. 3, Department of Labor and Association of Democratic Labor Organization (ADLO).

2. The resolution reads as follows: "L-43701, (Tablante-Tungol Enterprises v. Bureau of Labor Relations, Et. Al.) - Considering the allegations contained, the issues raised and the arguments adduced in the petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction, the Court Resolved to [dismiss] the petition for lack of merit.

3. L-45177, Tablante-Tungol Enterprises v. Hon. Carmelo C. Noriel, Eliseo A. Peñaflor and Association of Democratic Labor organization.

4. The private respondent is Association of Democratic Labor Organization.

5. Petition, I.

6. The resolution reads as follows: "Considering the allegations contained, the issues raised and the arguments adduced in the petition for certiorari as well as the respective comments of respondents, the Court Resolved to [dismiss] the petition for lack of merit, there being no showing of grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent public officials."cralaw virtua1aw library

7. He was assisted by Assistant Solicitor-General Reynato S. Puno and Trial Attorney Felix B. Lerio.

8. According to Presidential Decree No. 823 (1975), Section 11, par. (2): "Violations of this Decree by any legitimate labor organization shall be a ground for disciplinary action including but not limited to the cancellation of their registration permits."cralaw virtua1aw library

9. Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 849.

10. Petition, 6. Petitioner cited Article 239 of the New Labor Code, but as correctly pointed out in the Comment of the Solicitor General, the third official edition of such Code refers to is as Article 240.

11. Comment. 5-6.

12. Joint Motion to Dismiss, 1-2.




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






August-1978 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. P-1158 August 1, 1978 - ALEJANDRO C. ABEJARON v. JOSE V. PANES

  • G.R. No. L-20476 August 1, 1978 - IN RE: CORNELIA L. CO v. MARGARITA TERESITA BALMACEDA

  • A.M. No. L-34089 August 1, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs GAUDENCIO CANDADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-39303-05 August 1, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO B. GALAPIA

  • G.R. No. L-30281 August 2, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CELESTINO O. GARILLO

  • A.C. No. 1928 August 3, 1978 - IN RE: ATTY. MARCIAL A. EDILLON

  • G.R. No. L-32128 August 3, 1978 - SOCORRO M. ORLINO, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-47629 August 3, 1978 - MANUEL L. GARCIA v. ANTONIO M. MARTINEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47770 August 10, 1978 - DIOSDADO "JOHNNY" LEWIS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 1233 August 14, 1978 - JOSE BATOY v. VICENTE M. BLANCO

  • G.R. No. L-48176 August 14, 1978 - AMADO E. DE VERA v. PEDRO SAMSON C. ANIMAS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 728 August 16, 1978 - ARMANDO A. ALA v. JUAN G. ATENCIA

  • G.R. No. L-40392 August 18, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GENEROSO ALEGRIA

  • A.C. No. 1825 August 22, 1978 - ROMULO SANTOS v. ALBERTO M. DICHOSO

  • G.R. No. L-38315 August 22, 1978 - PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC. v. DOMINGO MANIEGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40884 August 22, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42471 August 22, 1978 - FRANCO C. ESPIRITU v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42738 August 22, 1978 - MARIANO A. LIMOS v. FERNANDEZ HERMANOS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47044 August 22, 1978 - LUZVIMINDA Z. JAMER v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 1587-CTJ August 23, 1978 - FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ v. SILVINO LU. BARRO

  • G.R. No. L-23493 August 23, 1978 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOVENCIO A. ZARAGOZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36937 August 23, 1978 - BENEDICTO S. PRUDON, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-38046-47 August 23, 1978 - ADRIANO AFRO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38197 August 23, 1978 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES B. PLAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41742 August 23, 1978 - MERCEDES OLLERO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41767 August 23, 1978 - ROMEO FERRER, ET AL. v. VICENTE G. ERICTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42433 August 23, 1978 - FELISA PARIAN v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43224 August 23, 1978 - ALFREDO SORIANO v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS

  • G.R. No. L-47848 August 23, 1978 - TABLANTE-TUNGOL ENTERPRISES v. CARMELO C. NORIEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34390 August 25, 1978 - SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA FIRESTONE-NATU, ET AL. v. FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43249 August 25, 1978 - ABUNDIO ALBURAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-44063 August 25, 1978 - VICTORIANO F. CORALES v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46290 August 25, 1978 - LOIDA SEPULVEDA v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46697 August 25, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEVERINO CUETO

  • A.M. No. 244-MJ August 31, 1978 - HILARION MANGARON v. JUAN L. BAGANO

  • A.M. No. 884-CFI August 31, 1978 - BAYANI VASQUEZ v. SEVERO MALVAR

  • A.M. No. 1228-MJ August 31, 1978 - ROSALINDA INDANGAN v. DOMINADOR TUMULAK

  • A.M. No. 2128-JC August 31, 1978 - IN RE : REQUEST OF CONSTANTE PIMENTEL

  • G.R. No. L-30072 August 31, 1978 - ALATCO TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. JOSE NAYVE

  • G.R. No. L-31963 August 31, 1978 - ANGEL CUNANAN v. ANDRES C. AGUILAR

  • G.R. No. L-33725 August 31, 1978 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-35213 August 31, 1978 - BALDOMERA GARCIA v. SERAFIN OROZCO

  • G.R. No. L-39575 August 31, 1978 - GOV’T. SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. GOV’T. SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM SUPERVISOR’S UNION

  • G.R. No. L-40175 August 31, 1978 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-42340 August 31, 1978 - VICTORIA O. NATIVIDAD v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-42776 August 31, 1978 - MACAPASIR ALONTO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-42794 August 31, 1978 - NENITA ALMAIZ v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-43030 August 31, 1978 - ZACARIAS PONCE v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-43044 August 31, 1978 - MARIA C. OLINO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-43096 August 31, 1978 - JOSE Y. LIM v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-43536 August 31, 1978 - SOLEDAD R. RUIVIVAR v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-43539 August 31, 1978 - ODON CRUZ CUETO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-44221 August 31, 1978 - FEDERICO SEVILLA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-45109 August 31, 1978 - ST. MICHAEL SECURITY SERVICE v. AMADO G. INCIONG

  • G.R. No. L-45494 August 31, 1978 - BENITO BOLISAY v. LEONARDO S. ALCID

  • G.R. No. L-46504 August 31, 1978 - TALENTO GRAGASIN v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-47772 August 31, 1978 - INOCENCIO TUGADE v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-48168 August 31, 1978 - RODULFO N. PELAEZ v. LUIS B. REYES