SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-71959 November 28, 1985

TRADE UNIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES & ALLIED SERVICES LOCAL CHAPTER NO. 1158 (SUPER GARMENTS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION WORKERS UNION), Petitioner, vs. HON. JOSE L. COSCOLLUELA JR., PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH CXLVI REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI AND RUSTAN COMMERCIAL CORPORATION, Respondents.

R E S O L U T I O N

ABAD SANTOS, J.:

The petition seeks to enjoin the public respondent from further proceeding in Civil Case No. 10905 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Metro Manila. Upon the filing of the petition this Court issued a temporary restraining order and required the private respondent to comment.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Petitioner union filed a notice of strike with the Ministry of Labor and Employment against Super Garments Manufacturing Corporation on May 12, 1985. The strike commenced on June 8, 1985 and is said to be still on.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Super Garments and Rustan Commercial Corporation have separate compartments in the same building at Malugay and streets It is called the Yupangco building.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

It is alleged by the petitioner union that goods of Super Garments were spirited out of its strike-bound premises thru Rustan's warehouse. Whereupon, the union picketed not only Super Garments but also Rustan. As a result Rustan filed Civil Case No. 10905 before the respondent judge for injunction and damages thru the PECABAR law office and petition No. 971 with the National Labor Relations Commission also to enjoin the union from picketing its premises. The petition was filed by another counsel, Atty. Armando B. Ampil.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

In Civil Case No. 10905, the respondent judge issued an order on June 21, 1985 setting "the hearing of theapplication for a writ of preliminary injuction on June 27, 1985 at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon." On July 15, 1985, the respondent judge issued the writ after finding no employer-employee relationship between the parties. This order prompted the petitioner union to come to this Court for the purpose aforesaid.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

In the meantime, petitioner union on July 12, 1985, filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against both Super Garments and Rustan alleging that the former is but the manufacturing arm of the latter.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Petitioner union claims that respondent judge has no jurisdiction to issue an injunction because the case is a labor dispute; that the prerogative belongs to the Minister of Labor and Employment. Upon the other hand, private respondent Rustan says that the respondent judge has jurisdiction because there is no labor dispute between it and the union even as it went to the National Labor Relation Commission to seek Identical relief.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

At this stage there appears to be no labor dispute between the petitioner and the private respondent for which reason the latter was justified in seeking relief in respondent judge's court. ihe unfair labor complaint filed by petitioner union on Page 304 July 12, 1985 does not prove a labor relationship. By the same token it was improper for the private respondent to have filed Case No. 971 with the National Labor Relations Commission.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

In the light of the foregoing, the petition is dismissed for lack of merit and the temporary restraining order issued on September 23, 1985 is hereby lifted. However, private respondent Rustan Commercial Corporation is directed to withdraw its case before the National Labor Relations Commission. No costs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED,