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

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 Eelations.

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 factpry, 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,  1957 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  coinmitting acts of violence in the premises of the  factory  operated by him, and  in  the affirmative, if the writ  of preliminai’y 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 done 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)  vs.  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  sets 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.”

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  lie 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 vs. E. G. Shinner & Co., Inc., supra)” (Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions  (PAFLU), et al. vs. Hon. Bicnvenido 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.

---

^* Unreported.