ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 126972. March 8, 1999]

SAN MIGUEL BAY TRADING CORP. LABOR UNION vs. NLRC, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 8, 1999.

G.R. No. 126972 (San Miguel Trading Corporation Labor Union vs. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and San Miguel Bay Trading Corporation.)

Petitioner San Miguel Bay Trading Corporation labor Union, represented by counsel Soliman Santos and subsequently by counsel Nelson Lagacion, filed this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 assailing (1) the Resolution of public respondent, NLRC, dated June 28, 1996, which dismissed petitioner's case for lack of jurisdiction over subject of the complaint; and (2) the Order dated August 16, 1996, denying reconsideration of said resolution.

This case involved mainly the alleged non-remittance by respondent corporation of union dues to the petitioner in the amount of P2,210. The alleged non-remittance was brought about by a conflict between two factions of the labor Union, namely, the Leopoldo Perillo faction and the Ricardo Olin faction. Both groups claimed their right to collect said union dues.

The Perillo faction was the first to file a complaint in 1988 for non-remittance of union dues against management. In a 1989 order by the labor arbiter, the union dues were paid to the Perillo group. Subsequently, herein petitioner (then led by Olin as union president) filed a similar complaint and the labor arbiter ordered respondent corporation to remit said dues. Respondent corporation claimed that it also issued a check to petitioner and/or Ricardo Olin, which meant the company paid twice for the same obligation, hence over and above what was required. Alleging that respondent corporation was in bad faith and had prevented herein petitioner from being able to encash the check, Atty. Soliman Santos, counsel for the union, filed a separate suit for damages in the Regional Trial Court of Naga City, Branch 21. The Labor arbiter ordered the dismissal of the herein petitioner's claim without prejudice to continuing the civil case. This order was the subject of appeal to the public respondent NLRC.

On June 29, 1996, the NLRC dismissed the appeal, but for the reason that resort to NLRC is not proper as the case falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations Division of the Department of Labor and Employment, pursuant to Article 226 of the Labor Code Reconsideration of said dismissal was denied by public respondent, NLRC, on August 16, 1996. Hence, the instant petition before us.

Considering the pleadings and the comments of the parties on record now, we find the petition filed by union counsel Soliman Santos bereft of merit.

Contrary to petitioner's claim, the mere fact that NLRC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, does not render this controversy as a proper case for special civil action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The proper issue in this case is a determination of who between the two factions of the company union is entitled to the remittance of said union dues. NLRC has made findings that respondent company has in fact already paid both factions and that the reason the Olin group was not able to get its money was due to legal requirements for encashing a check, i.e. that Atty. Soliman Santos who presented the check was not designated payee, and not because of bad faith. All these involve a question of fact, and absent any showing that the factual findings of the NLRC are not supported by evidence on record, these findings stand. They are not correctible by an appellate court through a petition for certiorari. (See Diola vs. NLRC, 222 SCRA 860). Moreover there appears, in our view, no reversible error in the assailed resolution, much less grave abuse of discretion committed by the public respondent, NLRC.

WHEREFORE, finding no grave abuse of discretion nor reversible error committed by public respondent, NLRC, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.

Very truly yours,

TOMASITA M. DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE