JOSE S. CAPISTRANO, PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. JUDGE JUAN BOCAR OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA AND ZACARIAS MANABAT, RESPONDENTS.

As a result of the general annual elections of officers of the
Union de Maquinistas, Fogoneros
y Motormen held on November 28 to December 4, 1964, the three-man committee on
elections of the union proclaimed on December 7, 1964 Jose S. Capistrano as
president-elect, stating that he obtained 234 votes, whereas his opponents, Zacarias F. Manabat and Maximo Llanes, obtained 207 and 8
votes, respectively, out of a total of 467 votes cast.

Upon the immediate protest of Zacarias Manabat, a recounting was made, after which the committee
invalidated 400 votes, credited Capistrano with only 27 votes and on December
17, 1964 proclaimed Manabat as winner, with 37
votes.  Subsequently, Manabat
filed his non-subversive affidavits as required by law.

The next day, Capistrano filed a formal protest before the
Secretary of Labor.  In a letter-motion
dated January 7, 1965, Manabat questioned the Secretary of Labor’s jurisdiction on
the ground that the main issue was an internal affair of the union, alleging
further that Capistrano failed to exhaust internal remedial measures outlined
in their constitution and by-laws.  Manabat waived the presentation of evidence and submitted
the case for decision on his letter-motion. 
Capistrano pre­sented his evidence.

Meanwhile, on January 5,
1965, Maximo Llanes
and 177 union members filed before the Court of Industrial Relations in Manila,
a complaint^[1]
for unfair labor practice, questioning the invalidation of 400 votes cast as a
deprivation of the members’ right to vote. 
Petitioners therein asked the Court of Industrial Relations to deter­mine
the elected officers as there were now two sets of officers in the union.

On January 19, 1965,
the Department of Labor, declar­ing itself vested with jurisdiction, declared
Capistrano elected after ruling that the invalidation of 400 votes was an undue
disenfranchisement of the union members. 
The 400 votes were invalidated because only the rubber stamp of the
secretary appeared therein instead of his signature.  This was considered insufficient proof of the
alleged fraud during the election, considering that at the time of the
election, no objection to the stamped ballots was made.

Manabat, on January 30, 1965, petitioned before Us for, a
writ of certiorari and prohibition
with preliminary injunction^[2]
to stop the Department of Labor from further acting on the election case in
view of the case filed in the Court of Industrial Relations.  We dismissed the said petition on February 2, 1965 “without
prejudice to resort if any in the lower court.”

On February 9, 1965, Manabat filed a
petition before the Court of First Instance of Manila for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction^[3]
against the Registrar of Labor Organizations, the Secretary of Labor and Jose
Capistrano, contending that the Department of Labor, under Section 17 of R.A.
875, had no jurisdiction to act on Capistrano’s protest, and that only the Court
of Industrial Relations had such jurisdiction. 
He asked that the respondents be enjoined from further entertaining the
protest of Capistrano and from implementing their decision on the protest.

Notwithstanding Capistrano’s allegations in his motion to dismiss
that under Section 17 of R.A. 875 jurisdiction was vested in the Court of
Industrial Relations – especially since there is already an unfair labor
practice case before the same involving the same parties and the same election,
the Court of First Instance ruled that under Sec. 17 of R.A. 875, it had
jurisdiction and issued the injunction prayed for, stating that the issuance of
the writ will not hurt anybody considering that counsel for respondents
manifested that the latter had no inten­tion of deciding Capistrano’s protest.

Said Court of First Instance denied on June 14, 1965, Capistrano’s motion for
reconsideration, pointing out that the consequences feared by Capistrano were
not in order in view of the manifestation that the respondents did not intend
to proclaim or recognize any of the contestants as elected.

Capistrano filed with Us on July 6, 1965 a petition for certiorari and prohibition with
preliminary injunction, praying that the Court of First Instance of Manila be
enjoined from proceeding with the afore-stated case and from enforcing the
preliminary injunction it issued, on the ground that under Sec. 17 of R.A. 875,
the Court of Industrial Relations, not the Court of First Instance, has
jurisdiction over the case.

To determine the issue of jurisdiction, the pertinent part of
Section 17 of R.A. 875, under which the lower court claimed jurisdiction, must
be examined.  The first part of the
section provides: “It is hereby declared to be the public policy of the Philippines
to encourage the following internal labor organization procedures.  A minimum of ten per cent of the members of a
labor organization may report an alleged violation of these procedures in their
labor organization to the Court.  If the
Court finds, upon investigation, evidence to substantiate the alleged violation
and that efforts to correct the alleged violation through the procedures
provided by the labor organization’s constitution or by-laws have been
exhausted, the Court shall dispose of the complaint as in ‘unfair labor practice’
cases.” The section then proceeds to enumerate the rights and
conditions.  It will be noted that while
the section merely states “Court” without specifying which court,
Section 2 of the same Act provides: “‘Court” means Court of
Industrial Relations established by Commonwealth Act Numbered One Hundred and
Three as amended, unless another Court shall be specified.” Thus, We have
already held that questions involving the rights and conditions of membership
in a labor organization under Section 17 of the Industrial Peace Act shall fall
within the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations.^[4]

Clearly, therefore, the Court of First Instance erred in taking
cognizance of the petition filed by Manabat, es­pecially
since at the time the petition was filed therein, the unfair labor practice
case was already filed in the Court of Industrial Relations which thereby
acquired com­plete jurisdiction, to the exclusion of the Court of First
Instance.^[5]
Even the premise upon which the Court of First Instance based its grant of the
injunction – that the De­partment of Labor officials had no intention of
deciding the controversy between Manabat and
Capistrano – was erroneous.  The
Department of Labor in fact declared Capistrano elected, after ruling that the
invalidation of the 400 votes was an improper disenfranchisement of the union
members.  Consequently, the Court of
First Instance also erred in denying the motion for reconsideration.

WHEREFORE, it is hereby declared that the Court of First
Instance of Manila has no jurisdiction over its Ci­vil Case No. 58912; said
case should therefore be dismissed and the preliminary injunction therein
issued, dissolved.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Case No. 342-ULP, p. 38 of the record.

^[2]
L-24081.

^[3]
Case No. 59812.

^[4] Kapisanan ng mga
Manggagawa sa MRR v.
Bugay, L-9327, March 30, 1957; 101 Phil. 18; PLASLU v. Ortiz,
L-11185, April 23, 1958;
103 Phil. 409.

^[5]
Citizens League of Free Workers v. Abbas,
L-21212, Sept. 23, 1966.