SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-25346 August 21, 1979

UNITED PHILIPPINE LINES, INC., Petitioner, vs. HON. ARSENIO I. MARTINEZ, EMILIANO C. TABIGNE, AND ANTANDO C. BUGAYONG, Judges the Court Industrial Relations and UNITED STEEL WORKERS ASSOCIATION THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

A petition for certiorari by way of review by United Philippines Lines, Inc. to nullify an order of the defunct Court of Industrial Relations certifying private respondent United Steel Workers Association of the Philippines as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent, was filed with this Court on the ground of its arbitrariness, there being a complete disregard of material facts and documents which would show that the workers involved were employees of an independent contractor. After the petition was given due course, the brief for petitioner was duly filed. Respondents did not submit any pleading. The period that had lapsed led this Tribunal to issue a resolution requiring the parties to inform the Court as to whether the petition has become moot and academic.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

A manifestation was duly filed by petitioner, the first paragraph of which stated that it "is still in the overseas shipping business and still operates one vessel," but the second paragraph admitted that it "no longer operates the vessels involved in the case at the relevant time, (although it) has plans of acquiring, either by purchase or charter, other vessels in the future which may require the services of tank cleaners; ... " 1 Such admission possesses relevance. When coupled with the manifest lack of interest of private respondent United Steel Workers Association of the Philippines, which until now has not been heard from, even petitioner merely assuming it has continued as such when its silence and inactivity could indicate the contrary, this Court does not see any necessity for resolving the issue raised. The fear of petitioner that private respondent would still be considered "as the sole exclusive bargaining agent" would seem to be illusory. What other conclusion can there be in the light of its own admission "that the vessels involved in the case are no longer operated by it." Moreover, no prejudice had been sustained by petitioner as there was a stay of the execution of the order complained of upon petitioner posting a bond of P1,000.00. It may further be noted that the question of certification, if it would arise subsequently, would be governed by the present Labor Code.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, this petition is dismissed for being moot and academic.

Endnotes:

1 Manifestation, 1.