Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1988 > February 1988 Decisions > G.R. No. 39084 February 23, 1988 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS v. EMILIO V. SALAS:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 39084. February 23, 1988.]

PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS (PAFLU), Petitioner, v. EMILIO V. SALAS, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Seventh Judicial District, Branch I, Pasig, Rizal and WONG KING YUEN, Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; JURISDICTION; CIVIL ACTION FOR DAMAGES FALLS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF COURTS OF FIRST INSTANCE. — It is clear that Civil Case No. 18460 is an ordinary civil action for damages, not a labor dispute. The case is directed against the provincial sheriff and the recovery of damages is sought against the bond provided for Section 17, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court governing execution and satisfaction of judgments. Even if the act complained of by the private respondent arose from a labor dispute between the petitioner and another party, the inevitable conclusion remains the same — there is no labor dispute between the petitioner and the private Respondent. Civil Case No. 18460 has no direct bearing with the case filed with the industrial court. The civil case remains distinct from the labor dispute pending with the CIR. There being no labor dispute between the petitioner and the private respondent, the Court of First Instance has the jurisdiction to issue the injunctive relief sought by the private respondent in Civil Case No. 18460. The latter case can proceed independently of the case pending in the Court of Industrial Relations.

2. ID.; COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS; JURISDICTION LIMITED TO LABOR DISPUTES. — Under Commonwealth Act No. 103, the law creating the Court of Industrial Relations, the jurisdiction of the industrial court is limited to labor disputes. i.e., problems and controversies pertaining to the relationship between employer and employee. From the foregoing, it is clear that the jurisdiction of the CIR can be invoked only when there is a dispute arising between or affecting employers and employees, or when an employer-employee relationship exists between the parties.


D E C I S I O N


GANCAYCO, J.:


This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

The record of the case discloses that the herein petitioner Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) is a labor organization registered with the Department of Labor and Employment. Sometime in 1963, the petitioner filed a Complaint for unfair labor practice with the then Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) against the Northwest Manufacturing Corporation and a certain Gan Hun. The suit was docketed as Case No. 3901-ULP.

On September 25, 1972, the CIR rendered a Decision in favor of the petitioner labor organization. Pursuant to a writ of execution issued by the CIR, the provincial sheriff of Rizal commenced levying the personal properties of the said Gan Hun, particularly the properties found in his residential apartment unit in San Juan, then a town of Rizal province.

The herein private respondent Wong King Yuen, however, claims that Gan Hun is his boarder in the apartment unit mentioned earlier and that the properties inside the apartment unit levied by the provincial sheriff belong to him and not to Gan Hun.

Thus, on October 18, 1973, the private respondent filed a Complaint for damages with the then Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal against the provincial sheriff. The suit was docketed as Civil Case No. 18460. The amount of money involved in the said case is about P24,680.00.

As sought by the private respondent, the CFI, with the herein respondent Judge Emilio V. Salas presiding therein, issued an injunctive writ restraining the provincial sheriff from proceeding with the sale of the properties in question.

After having been allowed by the CFI to intervene in Civil Case No. 18460, the petitioner labor organization sought to dismiss the Complaint on the ground that the said court had no jurisdiction over the case filed by the private Respondent. 1 The petitioner argued that Civil Case No. 18460 relates to an existing labor dispute and as such the proper forum for the same is the industrial court.

In an Order dated July 9, 1974, the CFI denied the Motion to Dismiss filed by the petitioner. 2 The petitioner sought a reconsideration of the said case but did not succeed in doing so. 3

On August 8, 1974, the petitioner elevated the case to this Court by way of the instant Petition. 4 The petitioner maintains its stand that the CFI has no jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 18460.

In an Answer filed with this Court on August 29, 1974, the private respondent contends that Civil Case No. 18460 is not a labor dispute cognizable by the industrial court. The private respondent points out that Civil Case No. 18460 is an ordinary civil action for damages against the provincial sheriff and directed against the sheriff’s bond required under Section 17, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The private respondent adds that it is an entirely separate proceeding distinct from the labor case filed with the CIR and that, accordingly, it is the Court of First Instance which has jurisdiction over the same. 5

After a careful examination of the entire record of the case, We find that instant Petition to be devoid of merit.

The sole issue in this case is whether or not the CFI has the jurisdiction to issue the injunctive relief questioned by the petitioner. We rule in the affirmative.

It is clear that Civil Case No. 18460 is an ordinary civil action for damages, not a labor dispute. The case is directed against the provincial sheriff and the recovery of damages is sought against the bond provided for Section 17, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court governing execution and satisfaction of judgments.

Even if the act complained of by the private respondent arose from a labor dispute between the petitioner and another party, the inevitable conclusion remains the same — there is no labor dispute between the petitioner and the private Respondent. Civil Case No. 18460 has no direct bearing with the case filed with the industrial court. The civil case remains distinct from the labor dispute pending with the CIR.

Under Commonwealth Act No. 103, the law creating the Court of Industrial Relations, the jurisdiction of the industrial court is limited to labor disputes. i.e., problems and controversies pertaining to the relationship between employer and employee. Section 1 thereof provides as follows —

"Sec. 1. Jurisdiction. — There is created a Court of Industrial Relations herein after called the court, which shall have jurisdiction over the entire Philippines to consider, investigate, decide and settle all questions, matters, controversies, or disputes arising between, and/or affecting employers and employees or laborers, and regulate the relations between them, . . ." (Italics supplied.)

From the foregoing, it is clear that the jurisdiction of the CIR can be invoked only when there is a dispute arising between or affecting employers and employees, or when an employer-employee relationship exists between the parties.

There being no labor dispute between the petitioner and the private respondent, the Court of First Instance 6 has the jurisdiction to issue the injunctive relief sought by the private respondent in Civil Case No. 18460. 7 The latter case can proceed independently of the case pending in the Court of Industrial Relations. 8

Accordingly, the writ of certiorari sought by the petitioner cannot issue.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant Petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. We make no pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (C.J.), Narvasa, Cruz and Griño-Aquino, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Pages 12 and 13, Rollo.

2. Page 14, Rollo.

3. Page 18, Rollo.

4. Pages 1 to 5, Rollo.

5. Pages 32 to 36, Rollo.

6. The Courts of First Instance have been replaced with the Regional Trial Court pursuant to Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.

7. Trade Unions of the Philippines & Allied Services Local Chapter No. 1158 v. Coscolluela, Jr., 140 SCRA 302 (1985).

8. Cases involving unfair labor practices are now resolved by the National Labor Relations Commission.




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






February-1988 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-46585 February 8,1988

    ANGELA V. GINSON v. MUNICIPALITY OF MURCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28896 February 17, 1988 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ALGUE, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75377 February 17, 1988 - CHUA KENG GIAP v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77716 February 17, 1988 - HEIRS OF THE LATE DOCTOR CORAZON DIAZ-LEUS v. HERNANI MELVIDA, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 3135 February 17, 1988 - MIGUEL CUENCO v. MARCELO B. FERNAN

  • G.R. No. L-37736 February 23, 1988 - ANTONIO L. EVANGELISTA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 39084 February 23, 1988 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS v. EMILIO V. SALAS

  • G.R. No. L-59621 February 23, 1988 - MAXIMILIANO ALVAREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60578 February 23, 1988 - PATERNO D. ESCUDERO, ET AL. v. CEFERINO E. DULAY

  • G.R. No. L-65114 February 23, 1988 - RENE KNECHT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69844 February 23, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO M. POLICARPIO

  • G.R. No. 72870 February 23, 1988 - TEODORO R. PULIDO v. MANUEL M. LAZARO

  • G.R. No. 74517 February 23, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENNY DY

  • A.C. No. 3086 February 23, 1988 - ALEXANDER PADILLA v. BALTAZAR R. DIZON

  • G.R. No. L-59514 February 25, 1988 - PACIANO REMALANTE v. CORNELIA TIBE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30360 February 26, 1988 - NICOLAS SALAMANCA, ET AL. v. FAUSTINO RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30852 February 26, 1988 - CITY OF ILIGAN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32055 February 26, 1988 - REYNALDO BERMUDEZ, SR., ET AL. v. A. MELENCIO-HERRERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32600 February 26, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. FELICIANO BELMONTE

  • G.R. No. L-34978 February 26, 1988 - ANGELES C. VDA. DE LAT, ET AL. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35647 February 26, 1988 - INDUSTRIAL & COMMERCIAL FACTORS, INC. v. AURORA S. MARASIGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38892 February 26, 1988 - BENITO LEGARDA, ET AL. v. VICTORIANO SAVELLANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43766 February 26, 1988 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44301 February 26, 1988 - MERARDO A. VELASQUEZ v. ROMEO D. MAGAT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49808 February 26, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNULFO AQUINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54223 February 26, 1988 - BABY BUS INC. v. MINISTER OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55062 February 26, 1988 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75067 February 26, 1988 - PUMA SPORTSCHUHFABRIKEN RUDOLF DASSLER, K.G. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76597 February 26, 1988 - TOMAS LAO v. LETICIA TO-CHIP, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 76648 February 26, 1988 - HEIRS OF THE LATE MATILDE MONTINOLA-SANSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 76954-55 February 26, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENIANO RENEJANE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31426 February 29, 1988 - LUZ CARO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34344 February 29, 1988 - RICARDO AGUIRRE, ET AL. v. JOSE DUMLAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35512 February 29, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO

  • G.R. No. L-36021 February 29, 1988 - PASTOR DE CASTRO, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36527 February 29, 1988 - COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39013 February 29, 1988 - FRANCISCO BUNAG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41979 February 29, 1988 - MATILDE SANCHEZ LIM v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-42624 February 29, 1988 - ANA C. BARCENAS v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44822 February 29, 1988 - ESPIRITA B. BUENDIA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46953 February 29, 1988 - JOSE N. MAYUGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48112 February 29, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO B. MONTON

  • G.R. No. L-48546 February 29, 1988 - SUMMIT GUARANTY & INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. GREGORIA C. ARNALDO

  • G.R. No. L-48969 February 29, 1988 - BELEN L. VDA. DE GUIA, ET AL. v. ROSARIO R. VELOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51983 February 29, 1988 - ADORACION VALERA BRINGAS v. HAROLD M. HERNANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55397 February 29, 1988 - TAI TONG CHUACHE & CO. v. INSURANCE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-59266 February 29, 1988 - SILVESTRE DIGNOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60007 February 29, 1988 - NOE C. BAJA v. ANTONIA CORPUZ MACANDOG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60443 February 29, 1988 - CONSTANTINO ALVAREZ, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68636 February 29, 1988 - NORTHERN CEMENT CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71177 February 29, 1988 - ERECTORS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73116 February 29, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRIMITIVO AVANZADO, SR.

  • G.R. No. 73867 February 29, 1988 - TELEFAST COMMUNICATIONS/PHILIPPINE WIRELESS, INC. v. IGNACIO CASTRO, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76464 February 29, 1988 - TESTATE OF THE LATE ADRIANA MALOTO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76690 February 29, 1988 - CLAUDIA RIVERA SANCHEZ v. MARIANO C. TUPAS

  • G.R. No. 78299 February 29, 1988 - G & G TRADING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS