Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1957 > December 1957 Decisions > G.R. No. L-12820 December 20, 1957 - SMB BOX FACTORY WORKER’S UNION (PAFLU) v. HON. JUDGE GUSTAVO VICTORIANO

102 Phil 646:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-12820. December 20, 1957.]

SMB BOX FACTORY WORKER’S UNION (PAFLU), Petitioner, v. HON. JUDGE GUSTAVO VICTORIANO, of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, and GONZALO SANCHEZ, Respondents.

Cipriano Cid & Associates for Petitioner.

S. Emiliano Calma for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. COURTS; JURISDICTION; CASE INVOLVING UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE; CIR EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION. — GS filed an action before the Court of First Instance of Rizal against the members of the SMB Box Factory Worker’s Union seeking to enjoin the latter from committing certain acts of violence, intimidation and other unlawful acts and to recover certain damages arising from the commission of the aforesaid unlawful acts. It was alleged that the members of the Union went on strike, together with either members of the Philippine Association of Free Labor Union, with which the Union was affiliated, formed picket line along the street leading to the box factory thereby preventing the non-striking laborers and employees of the corporation and of the factory from doing their work to the damage and prejudice of GS. It was prayed that a preliminary injunction permanent and ordering the defendants to pay damages. However before the filing of this case a prosecutor of the Court of Industrial Relations acting on a complaint filed by the petitioning Union filed with the CIR a charge for unfair labor practice against the SMB Box Factory owned by the SMB Inc., wherein the same issue concerning labor relations between the parties in said Civil case was involved. In view of the petition for preliminary injunction, but without receiving any testimonial evidence, the Court granted the petition and issue the corresponding writ. To set aside this order on the ground of lack of jurisdiction the defendants have interposed the present petition for certiorari. The only issue is whether the Court of First Instance of Rizal has jurisdiction to take cognizance of said case instituted by GS, Held: That "It appearing that the issue involved in the main case is interwoven with the unfair labor case pending before the Court of Industrial Relations as to which its jurisdiction is exclusive, it is evident that it does not come under the jurisdiction of the trial court even if it involves acts of violence, intimidation and coercion as averred in the complaint. These acts come within the purview of Section 9 (d) of Republic Act No. 875 which may be enjoined by the Court of Industrial Relation." (Premier Shirts & Pants Factory Chapter v. Hon. Hermogenes Calauag, Et Al., . G.R. No. L-9104)

2. ID.; ID.; ISSUANCE OF INJUNCTION; WHEN CASE INVOLVED LABOR DISPUTE; PROCEDURE. — Where a case involves labor dispute between employer and employee, a writ of preliminary injunction in order to have a legal effect can only be issued by the Court following the procedure laid down in Section 9 (d) of Republic Act 875.


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


This is a petition for certiorari which seeks to enjoin respondent Judge from enforcing the preliminary injunction issued by him against the members of petitioning union restraining them from exercising acts of violence and intimidation in and around the premises of the San Miguel Brewery Box Factory located in Mandaluyong, Rizal instituted by co-respondent Gonzalo Sanchez against the members of the same union and other sympathizing with them for damages arising from said acts of violence and intimidation on the ground that said respondent Judge does not have jurisdiction to act thereon involving as it does an unfair labor practice that comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations.

On August 22, 1957, one Gonzalo Sanchez filed an action before the Court of First Instance of Rizal against the members of the San Miguel Brewery Box Factory Workers’ Union, hereinafter referred to as union, seeking to enjoin the latter from committing certain acts of violence, intimidation and other unlawful acts in and around the premises of the San Miguel Brewery Box Factory located in Mandaluyong, Rizal, and to recover certain damages arising from the commission of the aforesaid unlawful acts (Civil Case No. 4655). It was alleged that plaintiff is the contractor of the San Miguel Brewery, Inc. for the manufacture and repair of wooden boxes for all the products of said corporation with the condition that he would furnish the labor but the materials and the place of the factory would be provided for by the corporation. It was also alleged that the defendant union is an organization of laborers who were contracted by the plaintiff to work in the factory, the plaintiff having acted only as an independent contractor.

On May 4, 1947, the members of the union went on strike without giving previous notice to the plaintiff or to the Conciliation Service of the Department of Labor and, together with other members of the Philippine Association of Free Labor Union with which the union was affiliated, formed picket lines along the streets leading to the box factory thereby preventing the non-striking laborers and other employees of the corporation from working in the factory and making deliveries of the materials manufactured therein. On July 2, 1957, an agreement was entered into between the union and the plaintiff setting forth the conditions under which the striking laborers would agree to return to work, and after the agreement was executed, said laborers did in fact return to work, but on August 8, 1957, in violation of the agreement, the members of the union went again on strike and started picketing again the streets and premises where the factory is situated and in connection with said picketing, they performed and committed certain acts of violence and intimidation with the aim in view of preventing, as they did prevent, the non-striking laborers and employees of the corporation and of the factory from doing their work to the damage and prejudice of the plaintiff. Wherefore, plaintiff prayed that a preliminary writ of injunction be issued pending the trial of the case on the merits and, thereafter, judgment be rendered making the injunction permanent and ordering defendants to pay damages consisting in not less than P40 per day representing his unearned profits from August 8, 1967 until defendants shall have actually ceased doing the unlawful acts complained of.

Defendants, on August 28, 1957, moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that its subject-matter does not come within the jurisdiction of the court. They alleged that on April 4, 1957, a prosecutor of the Court of Industrial Relations, acting on a complaint filed by the petitioning union, filed a charge for unfair labor practice against the San Miguel Brewery Box Factory owned and operated by the San Miguel Brewery, Inc., including one Pedro Bautista alleged to be the superintendent of the factory. Respondents therein filed a motion to dismiss contending that while the box factory is owned by said corporation, it is however operated by one Gonzalo Sanchez who acted as an independent contractor in connection with the work performed in said factory. The union denied that Sanchez was operating the factory as an independent contractor.

While this unfair labor case was then pending before the industrial court, the members of the union were locked out thereby forcing them to picket the premises of the factory. In the meantime, an agreement was entered into between the SMB Box Factory represented by Gonzalo Sanchez on one hand, and the union on the other, setting forth the conditions for the return of the workers. As a result, the workers returned to work, but on August 8, 1957, the members of the union were again locked-out in violation of the agreement whereupon they again picketed the premises which gave rise to the institution of the action for damages by Gonzalo Sanchez against the union and other laborers who sympathized with them.

In view of the petition for preliminary injunction contained in the complaint, the court set a date for hearing to give the parties an opportunity to appear and argue their respective points of view, and after the hearing, but without receiving any testimonial evidence, the court granted the petition and issued the corresponding writ. To set aside this order on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, defendants have interposed the present petition for certiorari.

The only issue before us is whether the Court of First Instance of Rizal has jurisdiction to take cognizance of Civil Case No. 4655 instituted by Gonzalo Sanchez against the members of the petitioning union to prevent them from picketing and committing acts of violence in the premises of the factory operated by him, and in the affirmative, if the writ of preliminary injunction issued by it to prevent them from doing the aforesaid acts of violence during the pendency of the case was issued in accordance with law.

It is contended in behalf of respondent Gonzalo Sanchez that the Court of First Instance of Rizal can take cognizance of the case instituted by him because the same merely aims at preventing the members of the petitioning union from committing acts of violence in the premises of the factory he is operating and at recovering the damages that he may have suffered resulting from said acts of violence. Counsel contends that that case does not concern any labor dispute nor does it involves an unfair labor practice and so it does not come under the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations.

We fail to agree with this contention. While it is true that the case instituted by Gonzalo Sanchez is merely one which concern the picketing or commission of acts of violence by the members of the petitioning union and its purpose is primarily to prevent them from committing said unlawful acts and incidentally to recover whatever damages he may have suffered as an incident thereto, it cannot be denied that before the institution of said case there was already a formal complaint of unfair labor practice filed against the operator of the San Miguel Brewery Box Factory by the members of the said union wherein the same issue concerning the labor relation between the parties in said civil case was involved. The claim that Gonzalo Sanchez was not involved in the unfair labor case pending before the Court of Industrial Relations is not quite correct for precisely the respondents therein moved to dismiss the charge contending that the factory was then being operated, not by the San Miguel Brewery, Inc., but by Gonzalo Sanchez as an independent contractor, which was denied by the union and this placed before the industrial court the issue of whether it is Sanchez or other subordinate employee of the corporation the one responsible for the unfair labor practice complained of. In the case instituted by Sanchez the same issue was raised by the union and so it can be said that the two cases are directly interwoven.

On all fours with the present is the case of National Garments and Textiles Workers’ Union-Paflu (Premier Shirts & Pants Factory Chapter) v. Hon. Hermogenes Caluag, Et Al., 99 Phil., 1067 * , wherein one Vicente Ang filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal against a labor union an action for injunction because of certain acts of violence committed by its members as a result of a labor dispute that arose between them, and because such labor dispute was already involved in two unfair labor cases that were then pending between the same parties before the Court of Industrial Relations, this Court held that the case belonged to the exclusive jurisdiction of the latter court. The Court said: "It appearing that the issue involved in the main case is interwoven with the unfair labor cases pending before the Court of Industrial Relations as to which its jurisdiction is exclusive, it is evident that it does not come under the jurisdiction of the trial court even if it involves acts of violence, intimidation and coercion as averred in the complaint. These acts come within the purview of Section 9 (d) of Republic Act 875 which may be enjoined by the Court of Industrial Relations."cralaw virtua1aw library

Even assuming arguendo that the Court of First Instance of Rizal could entertain the case instituted by Gonzalo Sanchez against petitioning union, still we declare that the writ of preliminary injunction issued by said court cannot have any legal effect because involving as it does a labor dispute between employer and employee, the same can only be issued following the procedure laid down in Section 9 (d) of Republic Act 875. The court a quo failed to do this but merely followed Rule 60, Section 6 of the Rules of Court. Said order is therefore null and void.

"We believe however that in order that an injunction may be properly issued the procedure laid down in section 9 (d) of Republic Act. 875 should be followed and cannot be granted ex-parte as allowed by Rule 60, Section 6, of the Rules of Court. The reason is that the case, involving as it does a labor dispute, comes under said section 9 (d) of the law. That procedure requires that there should be a hearing at which the parties should be given an opportunity to present witnesses in support of the complaint and of the opposition, if any, with opportunity for cross-examination, and that the other conditions required by said section as prerequisites for the granting of relief must be established and stated in the order of the court. Unless this procedure is followed, the proceedings would be invalid and of no effect. The court would then be acting in excess of its jurisdiction. (Lauf v. E. G. Shinner & Co., Inc., supra)" (Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU), Et. Al. v. Hon. Bienvenido A. Tan, Et Al., 99 Phil., 854; 52 Off. Gaz. (13) 5836).

Wherefore, petition is granted. The Court hereby sets aside the writ of preliminary injunction issued by respondent Judge, without pronouncement as to costs.

The writ of preliminary injunction issued by this Court is declared permanent.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Reyes, A., Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



* Unreported.




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






December-1957 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-7763 December 2, 1957 - HONORIA DELGADO VDA. DE GREGORIO v. GO CHONG BING

    102 Phil 556

  • G.R. No. L-10263 December 17, 1957 - ASSN. OF DRUGSTORE EMPLOYEES v. ARSENIO MARTINEZ

    102 Phil 561

  • G.R. No. L-10787 December 17, 1957 - VISAYAN ELECTRIC CO. v. the CITY OF DUMAGUETE

    102 Phil 566

  • G.R. No. L-10795 December 17, 1957 - TEOTIMO OCHOTORENA v. the DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    102 Phil 570

  • G.R. No. L-10008 December 18, 1957 - SY KIAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 575

  • G.R. No. L-11240 December 18, 1957 - CONCHITA LIGUEZ v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

    102 Phil 577

  • G.R. No. L-9914 December 19, 1957 - CONCEPCION H. LUNA v. MONS. PEDRO P. SANTOS

    102 Phil 588

  • G.R. No. L-8451 December 20, 1957 - ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC ADMINISTRATOR OF DAVAO v. THE LAND REGISTRATION COMM.

    102 Phil 596

  • G.R. No. L-10850 December 20, 1957 - DOROTEO ROMERO v. PEDRO VILLAMOR

    102 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. L-12820 December 20, 1957 - SMB BOX FACTORY WORKER’S UNION (PAFLU) v. HON. JUDGE GUSTAVO VICTORIANO

    102 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. L-9549 December 21, 1957 - MANILA TOBACCO ASSOCIATION v. THE CITY OF MANILA

    102 Phil 653

  • G.R. No. L-9646 December 21, 1957 - LAY KOCK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 657

  • G.R. No. L-7452 December 23, 1957 - JOSE A. ARCHES v. WILLIAM VILLARRUZ

    102 Phil 661

  • G.R. No. L-8259 December 23, 1957 - ANG MALAYANG MANGGAGAWA NG ANG TIBAY ENTERPRISES v. ANG TIBAY

    102 Phil 669

  • G.R. Nos. L-11128-33 December 23, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENE ESCARES

    102 Phil 677

  • G.R. No. L-11489 December 23, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. UY JUI PIO

    102 Phil 679

  • G.R. No. L-7593 December 24, 1957 - IN RE: Florencio P. Buan v. SYLVINA C. LAYA

    102 Phil 682

  • G.R. No. L-7705 December 24, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL GERVACIO

    102 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. L-7805 December 24, 1957 - PETRONILO CASTAÑEDA v. CATALINA M. DE LEON

    102 Phil 689

  • G.R. No. L-7840 December 24, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL ABRINA Y MONTANO ET. AL.

    102 Phil 695

  • G.R. No. L-10182 December 24, 1957 - JOSE GEUKEKO v. HON. SALVADOR ARANETA

    102 Phil 706

  • G.R. No. L-11142 December 24, 1957 - ISIDORO P. AURELIO v. FIRST NATIONAL SURETY & ASSURANCE COMPANY

    102 Phil 714

  • G.R. No. L-6273 December 27, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE HIDALGO y RESURRECCION

    102 Phil 719

  • G.R. No. L-11114 December 27, 1957 - CRESENCIANO TORREFRANCA v. FILOMENO ALBISO

    102 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. L-11435 December 27, 1957 - HON. MATEO L. ALCASID v. AMADO V. SAMSON

    102 Phil 735

  • G.R. No. L-7310 December 28, 1957 - ANTONIO MANIMTIM v. CO CHO CHIT

    102 Phil 741

  • G.R. No. L-8333 December 28, 1957 - GELACIO BODIONGAN v. HON. PATRICIO C. CENIZA

    102 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. L-8334 December 28, 1957 - BIENVENIDO BABAO v. FLORENCIO PEREZ

    102 Phil 756

  • G.R. No. L-10000 December 28, 1957 - IN RE: JOSE B. SUNTAY v. FEDERICO C. SUNTAY

    102 Phil 769

  • G.R. No. L-10036 December 28, 1957 - GENERAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO v. CESAREO DE LEON

    102 Phil 784

  • G.R. Nos. L-10943 & L-10944 December 28, 1957 - ANGAT RIVER IRRIGATION SYSTEM v. ANGAT RIVER WORKERS’ UNION (PLUM)

    102 Phil 789