Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1971 > March 1971 Decisions > G.R. No. L-23722 March 31, 1971 - JUAN ESPANILLA, ET AL. v. LA CARLOTA SUGAR CENTRAL, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-23722. March 31, 1971.]

JUAN ESPANILLA, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LA CARLOTA SUGAR CENTRAL and the NATIONAL SUGAR WORKERS UNION (NASWU-PAFLU), Defendants-Appellees.

Seno, Mendoza, Ruiz & Associates, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Hilado & Hilado for defendant-appellee La Carlota Sugar Central.

Cipriano Cid & Associates for defendant appellee National Sugar Workers Union (NASWA-PAFLU).


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR LAWS; JURISDICTION; COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS; UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE. — Delving deeper into the nature and purpose of appellants’ action, We can not but reach the conclusion that it was intended primarily to prevent their dismissal or, at least to prevent the defendants-appellees from compelling them to withdraw their resignation from the appellant Union. It seems clear from this that the action was, in effect, intended to prevent the commission of an act which could constitute an unfair labor practice. In this connection, We have recently held in Lakas Ng Manggagawang Makabayan (LMM) v. Hon. Carlos Abiera, Et. Al. (G.R. No. L-29474, December 19, 1970) that under Sec. 5(a) of the Industrial Peace Act the Court of Industrial Relations has jurisdiction over the prevention of unfair labor practices; that it is empowered to prevent any person from engaging in any unfair labor practice, and that said court and not a Court of First Instance is the one vested with jurisdiction over any kind of unfair labor practice. We. therefore, agree with the trial court that it had no jurisdiction over appellants’ action.


D E C I S I O N


DIZON, J.:


On April 20, 1964, Juan Espanilla and other filed with the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental a pleading entitled Petition for Declaratory Belief with Preliminary Injunction against La Carlota Sugar Central — hereinafter referred to as the Central — and the National Sugar Workers Union (NASWU-PAFLU) — hereinafter referred to as the Union.

The Central filed its answer alleging, inter alia, that it had no desire to participate in the dispute between the plaintiff and its co-defendant Union, and that it was constrained to send the letters mentioned in the complaint because it was threatened with a strike by the Union in case it did not accede to its demand for the dismissal of the plaintiffs upon their failure to re-affiliate with the Union.

On April 23, 1965, the Union filed a motion to dismiss the case claiming that the court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter thereof because it involved an impending labor strike and it was related to a case for unfair labor practice then pending in the Court of Industrial Relations as Case No. 3910-ULP. Both parties admit, however, that this case has already been dismissed because of non-appearance of the therein complainants at the scheduled hearing.

After a hearing on the motion to dismiss, the trial court, on August 1, 1964, issued an order dismissing the case upon the ground that it had no jurisdiction over its subject matter. Hence, the present appeal in which appellants pray for a reversal of said order and or the remanding of the case to the lower court for further proceedings, upon the following grounds:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"FIRST ERROR

The Lower Court Erred In

Holding That Jurisdiction In The

Present Case Should Be With The

Court Of Industrial Relations.

SECOND ERROR

The Lower Court Erred In

Holding That Case No. 3910-ULP.

CIR, Is Between The Parties.

THIRD ERROR

The Lower Court Erred In

Dismissing This Case."cralaw virtua1aw library

The pleadings of the parties reproduced in the Record on Appeal clearly show that appellants’ action can not be one for declaratory relief, its purpose being firstly, to secure judgment declaring "as illegal, immoral, and null and void," Sec. 1 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (Annex A attached to the complaint) entered into by and between the defendants La Carlota Sugar Central and National Sugar Workers Union (NASWU-PAFLU) and secondly, to enjoin the enforcement of its provisions against the plaintiffs.

However, delving deeper into the nature and purpose of appellants’ action, We can not but reach the conclusion that it was intended primarily to prevent their dismissal or, at least to prevent the defendants-appellees from compelling them to withdraw their resignation from the appellant Union. It seems clear from this that the action was, in effect, intended to prevent the commission of an act which would constitute an unfair labor practice. In this connection, We have recent]y held in Lakas Ng Manggagawang Makabayan (LMM) v. Hon. Carlos Abiera, Et. Al. (G.R. No. L-29474, December 19, 1970) that under Sec. 6 (a) of the Industrial Peace Act the Court of Industrial Relations has jurisdiction over the prevention of unfair labor practices; that it is empowered to prevent any person from engaging in any unfair labor practice, and that said court and not a Court of First Instance is the one vested with jurisdiction over any kind of unfair labor practice. We, therefore, agree with the trial court that it had no jurisdiction over appellants’ action.

WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal appealed from is affirmed but without prejudice to appellants’ right to seek relief from the Court of Industrial Relations. Without costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Villamor and Makasiar, 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






March-1971 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 179-J March 15, 1971 - CONRADO MONTALBAN v. MATEO CANONOY

  • G.R. No. L-28389 March 15, 1971 - TIONG SAN EMPLOYEES UNION, ET AL. v. ANDRES LAO, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29385 March 15, 1971 - FLORENTINO TAMAYO, ET AL. v. MANILA CORDAGE WORKERS UNION, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22551 March 16, 1971 - WONG SAU MEI, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-33149 March 16, 1971 - UNITED PHILIPPINE LINES, INC. v. GODOFREDO DEANG

  • G.R. No. L-25932 March 19, 1971 - LUCILA B. VDA. DE AZARIAS v. MANOLO L. MADDELA

  • G.R. No. L-26752 March 19, 1971 - PATERNO SANTOS, ET AL., ET AL. v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27388 March 23, 1971 - TRINIDAD RASAY-LAHOZ, ET AL. v. DOMINGO LEONOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-29777-83 March 26, 1971 - GREGORIO SOLIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24893 March 26, 1971 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. A. SORIANO Y CIA, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 137-J March 27, 1971 - MARCIANA BUENAVENTURA v. MARIANO V. BENEDICTO

  • G.R. No. L-19614 March 27, 1971 - JESUS M. GABOYA, ET AL. v. ANTONIO MA. CUI, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20662 & L-20663 March 27, 1971 - PHILIPPINE MARINE OFFICERS’ GUILD v. COMPAÑIA MARITIME, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22519 March 27, 1971 - VICENTE GOTAMCO HERMANOS v. IRMA ROHDE SHOTWELL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26619 March 27, 1971 - ZENITH FILMS, INC. v. JOSE B. HERRERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25016 March 27, 1971 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MODESTO BERACES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27632 March 27, 1971 - MIGUEL OCAMPO v. LIBERATO S. DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28466 March 27, 1971 - ALBERTO T. REYES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26068 March 29, 1971 - CITY OF CEBU v. FELIMON R. CONSOLACION

  • G.R. No. L-32010 March 29, 1971 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ANGEL P. BACANI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28633 March 30, 1971 - CENTRAL SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY v. C. N. HODGES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30298 March 30, 1971 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO MERCADO

  • A.C. No. 181-J March 31, 1971 - JOSE C. LUCIANO v. HERMINIO C. MARIANO

  • G.R. No. L-23722 March 31, 1971 - JUAN ESPANILLA, ET AL. v. LA CARLOTA SUGAR CENTRAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24237 March 31, 1971 - DONATA LUNA v. PEDRO PACIS

  • G.R. No. L-24358 March 31, 1971 - ELISEO GUEVARA, ET AL. v. PLACIDO C. RAMOS

  • G.R. No. L-24663 March 31, 1971 - RAMON A. GONZALES, ET AL. v. PROVINCE OF ILOILO

  • G.R. No. L-24898 March 31, 1971 - GO OH, ET AL. v. MARTINIANO VIVO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25421 March 31, 1971 - SIMEON PATALINGHUD v. FELISA BALLESTEROS

  • G.R. No. L-26608 March 31, 1971 - PEDRO G. PERALTA v. ISMAEL MATHAY

  • G.R. No. L-27377 March 31, 1971 - DY PAC PAKIAO WORKERS UNION v. DY PAC II AND COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28317 March 31, 1971 - SANTIAGO ORTEGA v. ANDRES ORCINE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28771 March 31, 1971 - CORNELIA MATABUENA v. PETRONILA CERVANTES

  • G.R. No. L-28783 March 31, 1971 - PERLA REYES v. JUSTINA CARRASCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29499 March 31, 1971 - IN RE: CHUA SIU TING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-29715 March 31, 1971 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADELO ABEJUELA

  • G.R. Nos. L-29938-39 March 31, 1971 - SAMAR MINING CO., INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30054 March 31, 1971 - SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31259 March 31, 1971 - MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32170 March 31, 1971 - CITIZENS’ SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. A. MELENCIO-HERRERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32740 March 31, 1971 - PHILIPPINE AIR LINES EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION v. PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32824 March 31, 1971 - HOLLANDA A. S. EVANGELISTA, ET AL. v. LA PROVEEDORA, INC., ET AL.