Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1965 > May 1965 Decisions > G.R. No. L-20792 May 31, 1965 - ELIZALDE & CO., INC. v. ALLIED WORKERS ASSO. OF THE PHIL., ET AL:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-20792. May 31, 1965.]

ELIZALDE & CO., INC., doing business under the name "HACIENDA VALENCIA,", Petitioner, v. ALLIED WORKERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, Bais Chapter, Agricultural Section (AWA) and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Respondents.

Benedicto G. Arcinas for Petitioner.


SYLLABUS


1. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS; JURISDICTION OVER CONFLICTS BETWEEN LANDOWNERS AND AGRICULTURAL LABORERS. — Controversies between capital and labor in agricultural lands under any system of cultivation are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations and not within that of the Court of Industrial Relations.

2. ID.; ID.; PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS OF AGRICULTURAL LABORER’S RIGHTS PUNISHABLE UNDER REPUBLIC ACT 1199. — A violation of the agricultural laborer’s rights conferred by Section 27, Republic Act 2263, would be punishable under Section 57 of Republic Act 1199, as well as under the contempt power conferred by Section 8 of Republic Act No. 1267 on the Agrarian Court.

3. ID.; AGRARIAN COURT MAY SET UP OWN MACHINERY TO DEAL WITH QUESTIONS OF UNION REPRESENTATIONS. — The Court of Agrarian Relations may set up its own organizational machinery to deal with questions of union representation of agricultural laborers.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.B.L., J.:


Certiorari to review a resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations, in its Case No. 198-MC-Cebu (Allied Workers’ Association v. "Hacienda Valencia" Business Enterprises and Elizalde & Co., Inc.), asserting its jurisdiction over the case.

The Allied Workers’ Association of the Philippines, Bais Chapter, Agricultural Section, a labor organization with Permit No. 3296-IP from the Department of Labor, had petitioned the Court of Industrial Relations for a certification as sole and exclusive representative of all the employees of the "Hacienda Valencia," owned and operated by petitioner Elizalde & Co., Inc. The latter filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the petitioning workers were all agricultural workers of the "Hacienda Valencia," an enterprise dedicated solely to the planting and cultivation of sugar cane; and that, as decided in the case of Santos v. C.I.R., L-17196, December 28, 1961, controversies between capital and labor in agricultural lands under any system of cultivation are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations and not within that of the Court of Industrial Relations. The motion to dismiss was granted by the hearing judge; but upon appeal to the court en banc, the latter, by majority vote, reversed the resolution, holding that it has "exclusive jurisdiction over all cases that pertain to the union rights of the employees, agriculture workers being included therein by virtue of section 27 of Republic Act 2263."cralaw virtua1aw library

Hence this petition for certiorari.

The question of jurisdiction over conflicts between landowners and laborers engaged in agricultural work is not new, and has been repeatedly passed upon by this Supreme Court. The case of Victorias Milling Co. v. C.I.R. and Free Visayan Workers, G. R. No. L-17281, decided on March 30, 1963, is particularly relevant, being almost on all fours with the present case. There a union of laborers working in the sugar cane haciendas of the Victorias Milling Co. had charged the company with unfair labor practice in the Court of Industrial Relations. The latter’s jurisdiction was impugned before this Court, and it was held that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The members of respondent Union are merely agricultural laborers in petitioner’s haciendas, the principal work of which is planting and harvesting sugar cane and other chores incidental to ordinary farming operations. They are agricultural workers, and in the supposition that the milling company had committed unfair labor practice upon them, the Court of agrarian Relations has jurisdiction over the case."cralaw virtua1aw library

It was also ruled in Hacienda Esperanza, Et. Al. v. C.I.R., Et Al., G. R. No. L-18708, Nov. 28, 1962:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"An unfair labor practice case involving agricultural laborers engaged in agricultural pursuits are within the jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations."cralaw virtua1aw library

a ruling reiterated in Camus v. Court of Agrarian Relations, L-18225, June 30, 1964.

The rationale of these rulings was set in the preceding case of Santos v. C.I.R., Et Al., G.R. No. L-171967 December 28, 1961, in that —

"not only because an agricultural laborer does not come within the purview of the word "employee" defined in Section 2(d) of R.A. 875 but also because any matter that may pertain to the relation of tenant and landlord comes under the Agricultural Tenancy Act (R.A. No. 1199 as amended by Republic Act No. 2263) and any controversy that may arise between them as an incident of their relationship comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations created by Republic Act No. 1267."cralaw virtua1aw library

The Court of Agrarian Relations, expressly created for the "enforcement of all laws and regulations governing the relation of capital and labor on all agricultural lands under any systems of cultivation" (See 1, R.A. 1267), was given exclusive jurisdiction over the entire Philippines "to consider, investigate, decide and settle all questions, matters, controversies, or disputes involving all those relationships established by law which determine the varying rights of persons in the cultivation and use of agricultural land where one of the parties works the land" (Sec. 7, R.A. 1267), and that jurisdiction is certainly enough to include disputes over union representation of agricultural laborers and other workers that were given, by Section 27 of Republic Act No. 2263, the right to form, maintain and expand their unions and organizations, prohibiting landholders from discouraging, initiating, dominating, assisting or interfering with such unions or organizations.

The appealed resolution of the respondent court argues that there would be no penalty imposable for violation of the laborer’s rights conferred by section 27, Republic Act No. 2263, except by applying the Industrial Peace Act, R. A. 875. This is a mistake. That section was an amendment to Republic Act 1199 (Tenancy Act), and, therefore, its violation would be punishable under section 57 of the latter Act, penalizing with a fine not exceeding two thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding one year or both any violation of its provisions; as well as under the contempt power conferred by Section 8 of Republic Act No. 1267 on the Agrarian Court.

Nor are we impressed by the consideration that the Court of Industrial Relations already has the machinery to deal with questions of union representation. There is no reason why the Court of Agrarian Relations may not set up its own organization to deal with cases within its jurisdiction as circumstances may require, making use of its rule-making power or by calling upon the opposite government offices, as its organic law empowers it to do.

Respondent AWA calls attention to the fact that Republic Act No. 809 and its provisions refer to the persons engaged in the "sugar industry." Nothing in said Act, however, indicates any legislative intent to convert the agricultural laborers into industrial employees; the term "sugar industry" in said Act refers to sugar millers, planters and laborers as a whole, and has no bearing on the issue now before the Court.

WHEREFORE, the resolution under review is reversed, and the petition for certification is ordered dismissed, without prejudice to petitioner’s seeking relief in the proper courts. No costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Barrera, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.




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






May-1965 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-16784 May 19, 1965 - IN RE: LIANE C. GOMEZ v. AUGUSTO G. SYJUCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19997 May 19, 1965 - VISAYAN BICYCLE MANUFACTURING CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20139 May 19, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEGUNDO MARQUEZ Y CASTRO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20282 May 19, 1965 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. EUSEBIO DAPLAS

  • G.R. No. L-20791 May 19, 1965 - MANUEL F. AQUINO, ET AL v. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20815 May 19, 1965 - SANTIAGO MANZANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19537 May 20, 1965 - LINO GUTIERREZ, ET AL v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-18766 May 20, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON LOPEZ

  • G.R. No. L-19537 May 20, 1965 - LINO GUTIERREZ, ET AL. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-19727 May 20, 1965 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PHOENIX ASSURANCE CO., LTD.

  • G.R. No. L-20430 May 20, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUVIGES SAN ANTONIO

  • A.C. No. 611 May 25, 1965 - BONIFACIO GARCIA, ET AL v. ATTY. ABELARDO MILLA

  • G.R. No. L-20448 May 25, 1965 - NAPOLEON MAGALIT, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20618 May 25, 1965 - HERMENEGILDO R. ROSALES v. FLAVIANO YENKO

  • G.R. No. L-14532 & L-14533 May 26, 1965 - JOSE LEON GONZALES v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13469 May 27, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO EGUAL, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-15706 May 27, 1965 - ILDEFONSO D. YAP, ET AL v. MANUEL L. CARREON

  • G.R. No. L-18804 May 27, 1965 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. WESTERN PACIFIC CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-19450 May 27, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIMPLICIO VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. L-21997 May 27, 1965 - JOSE C. ZULUETA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. L-13816 May 31, 1965 - SEVERO ROMERO, ET AL. v. ISABELO DE LOS REYES, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-17132 May 31, 1965 - JUAN BENEMERITO, ET AL v. PETRONILA COSTANILLA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17320 May 31, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO PAZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17712 May 31, 1965 - BASILIO UNSAY, ET AL v. CECILIA MUÑOZ PALMA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18038 May 31, 1965 - ROSA GUSTILO v. AUGUSTO GUSTILO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18348 May 31, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAMILO CALACALA

  • G.R. No. L-18443 May 31, 1965 - ENRIQUE SISON, ET AL v. JUAN PAJO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18452 May 31, 1965 - AUGUSTO COSIO, ET AL v. CHERIE PALILEO

  • G.R. No. L-18497 May 31, 1965 - DAGUPAN TRADING COMPANY v. RUSTICO MACAM

  • G.R. No. L-19346 May 31, 1965 - SOLEDAD L. LACSON, ET AL. v. ABELARDO G. DIAZ

  • G.R. No. L-19587 May 31, 1965 - RAFAEL JALOTJOT v. MARINDUQUE IRON MINES AGENTS, INC., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19646 May 31, 1965 - IN RE: ESPIRITU NG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19659 May 31, 1965 - DR. POLICARPIO C. ALISOSO v. TARCELA LASTIMOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19967 May 31, 1965 - ARSENIO REYES v. SINAI C. HAMADA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20202 May 31, 1965 - CIRIACO HERNANDEZ v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20227 May 31, 1965 - IN RE: GO KEM LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20275-79 May 31, 1965 - VIRGINIA B. UICHANCO, ET AL v. FIDEL GUTIERREZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20394 May 31, 1965 - STEPHEN W. MARTIN v. CELESTINO GOMEZ

  • G.R. No. L-20472 May 31, 1965 - MARIO F. OUANO, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20577 May 31, 1965 - VISAYAN PACKING CORP. v. REPARATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-20617 May 31, 1965 - BRUNO GARCIA v. DALMACIO ANAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20737 May 31, 1965 - ROQUE ESCAÑO v. RODRIGO C. LIM

  • G.R. No. L-20792 May 31, 1965 - ELIZALDE & CO., INC. v. ALLIED WORKERS ASSO. OF THE PHIL., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20950 May 31, 1965 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. AYALA Y CIA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-21235 May 31, 1965 - RODOLFO TIRONA v. M. CUDIAMAT

  • G.R. No. L-21653 May 31, 1965 - VICENTE DE LARA, JR., ET AL v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-21764 May 31, 1965 - VICENTE CABILING, ET AL. v. EUSEBIO PABULAAN, ET AL.