THE SCOTY’S DEPARTMENT STORE, PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. MODESTO CASTILLO, ETC., THE NATIONAL LABOR UNION, AND THE INTER-ISLAND DOCKMEN AND LABOR UNION, RESPONDENTS.

On January 27, 1954, Scoty’s Department Store filed a petition in the Court
of Industrial Relations praying that a certification election be ordered held to
determine which, as between the National Labor Union and the Inter-Island
Dockmen and Labor Union, was to be the exclusive bargaining representative of
its employees. For brevity the parties will hereafter be referred to as the
STORE, NATIONAL LABOR, and INTER-ISLAND UNION, respectively. Twenty-three days
thereafter, the STORE brought the present action for mandamus alleging that
“since the filing of the petition x x x no action has been taken thereon by
Branch II of the Court of Industrial Relations which take cognizance thereof and
is presided over by the respondent the Hon. Modesto Castillo,”who, it is also
alleged, “has countenanced the repeated postponement and dilatory tactics
employed by respondent labor union,” and praying that the respondent judge be
comanded “to forthwith rule upon the petition for certification election.” And
alleging further that the dilatory tactics employed by the respondent labor
unions have prevented the STORE from negotiating with its employees on terms of
employment and specially on the separation of those hired for the Christmas
season only and have caused and continue causing less to the STORE in the sum of
P300.00 a day, plaintiff also prays that the said labor unions be made to pay
damages.

From the answer and supporting papers submitted by respondents it appears
that as soon as the petition was docketed in the court below summons were issued
to the parties with an early date set for hearing, and hearing was in face held
on February 4 and 10; that the hearing was interrupted because of a motion to
dismiss filed by the NATIONAL LABOR on the ground that there was then pending
against the STORE a case for unfair labor practice whose resolution was
essential to a free expression of the will of those who were to vote in the
certification election; that the said motion to dismiss was denied on February
27, but that on March 8 the NATIONAL LABOR filed a motion for reconsideration,
followed later by a supporting memorandum, and pending resolution of the motion
by the court in banc the respondent judge was naturally inhibited
from acting on the case.

At the hearing in the Court, no one appeared for plaintiff, and its charge of
inaction on the part of the respondent judge and the alleged dilatory tactics on
the part of the respondent unions have not been proved. On the other hand, it
would apppear that the respondent judge has acted with dispatch in having the
case heard until it was temporarily taken out of his hands by the NATIONAL
LABOR’s motion for reconsideration of his order to dismiss, the resolution of
which devolved upon the court in banc. The allegationthat since the
filing of the petition ha had taken no action thereon is clearly unfounded. It
may be added that, as stated in the memorandum filed by the respondent NATIONAL
LABOR, the hearing of the STORE’s petition for certification election has been
ordered suspended by the court in banc pending resolution of a complaint
filed by said respondent charging the STORE with “having assisted and dominated
in the formation and administration fo the branch of the Inter-Island Dockmen
and Labor Union among its workers in violation of Section 4(a) of Republic Act
No. 875.”

Clearly the STORE has no case for mandamus. Its petition in the Court is,
therefore, dismissed, with double costs.

Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador,
Concepcion, and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.