G.R. No. L-25171. August 17, 1967
NATIONAL BREWERY & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LABOR UNION (PAFLU), PETITIONER, VS. HON. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH VI, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, SAN MIGUEL…
ANGELES, J.:
Before Us is a petition for certiorari with preliminary
injunction seeking to set aside the order, dated April 25, 1964, issued in
Civil Case No. 56563 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, presided by the
respondent Judge, which is of the following tenor:
“When this case was called today, the attention of this Court
was invited to the fact that the subject-matter involved in this case is
practically about Unfair Labor Practices provided for under Republic Act No. 875 which falls under the
jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations.
“That there is actually pending before the CIR – Case No.
4128 -pertaining to the questions involved in this case.
“WHEREFORE, finding that the Court of Industrial Relations has
the jurisdiction to settle the
case, the Court orders that this case be held in abeyance until the Court of Industrial
Relations has finally decided such case.
In the meantime, the money in the hands of the San Miguel Corporation
intended for delivery to the rightful party should be deposited with this
court.“
The
petition is specifically directed against that portion of the aforequoted order requiring the deposit with the court of
the money in the hands of the San Miguel Corporation.
The case is set upon the
following antecedents:
On March 18, 1964, the
National Brewery & Allied Industries Labor Union (PAFLU) filed a petition
for prohibition with preliminary injunction against the San Miguel
Corporation, the Philippine Banking Corporation and the Philippine National
Bank, in the Court of First Instance of Manila where the case was docketed as
Civil Case No. 56563, alleging that petitioner is the collective bargaining
representative of the workers of the San Miguel Corporation; that in the
biennial election of petitioner’s officers held on November 7, 1963, wherein
the faction of Antonio Santos defeated the faction of Charles Mitscheck, said Antonio Santos and Bonifacio
Flores were elected president and treasurer of the union, respectively; that in
view of the refusal of the Committee on Elections to certify the result of the
elections to the National Council, and conformably to Section 3, Article VII of
the Constitution and By-Laws of the union, the incumbent officers whose term of
office would expire on December 31, 1963, would remain as hold-over
officers until their successors have been duly elected; that under the
collective bargaining agreement between petitioner and the San Miguel Corporation
the latter “will make payroll deductions of dues and assessments of
members of the union” and “All deductions made by the Company will
be remitted to the treasurer of the Union within a reasonable time after each
payday”; that petitioner had the amounts of P150,967.15 and P6,478.54
deposited with the Philippine Banking Corporation and the Philippine National
Bank, respectively; that on March 11, 1964, Charles Mitscheck
notified the San Miguel Corporation in writing that in an election of officers
held on February 19, 1964, he was elected president and Bonifacio
Flores as treasurer of the union, advising the company to “remit all
payroll deductions of union dues and assessments of members of our union
only to the national treasurer, Mr. Bonifacio Flores,
within a reasonable time after each payday”; that the “pretensions of
Charles Mitscheck x x x have no
basis in fact and in law x x x, and he together with
the officers allegedly elected on February 19, 1964 do not have any right
whatsoever to arrogate unto themselves the power and prerogatives of the
legitimate officers of the Petitioner”; that Mitscheck
sent analogous written notifications concerning his alleged election as
president to the Philippine National Bank and the Philippine Banking
Corporation and by reason of said notifications, the banking institutions have
refused to honor the checks drawn by petitioner against its deposits in said
banks; that such refusal of the banks has paralyzed the affairs of the union,
especially in money matters, and by so refusing the banks have acted
illegally, in excess of authority and with grave abuse of discretion. The petition concludes with a prayer for an
ex-parte preliminary injunction to restrain the banks
from honoring the claims and pretensions of Charles Mitscheck
or from having any transaction with him in the name and in representation of
the union.
On April 25, 1964,
the respondent Judge issued the questioned order the text of which is quoted
hereinabove.
In answer to the petition, the San Miguel Corporation prayed
that the two sets of officers – one headed by Antonio Santos and another by
Charles Mitscheck – who are both claiming the
authority to receive the union dues and assessments, should be required to
interplead and litigate their conflicting claims. As prayed for, the respondent Judge ordered
the two sets of officers to interplead and litigate their adverse claims.
The faction of Charles Mitscheck, under
the name of “Workers’ Union of San Miguel Corporation”, duly registered
with the Department of Labor under certificate No. 4335-IP issued on October 20, 1964, filed its pleading
in intervention in due time claiming that Charles Mitscheck
is the representative of the union duly authorized to deal with the San Miguel
Corporation.
On May 24, 1964, the faction of Antonio Santos and the clique of
Charles Mitscheck, through their respective counsel
of record, entered into an agreement to submit their controversy to an
arbitrator, in the person of his Honor, Judge Arsenio
J. Martinez, Presiding Judge of the Court of Industrial Relations, stipulating
“that the award and/or decision to be rendered in the arbitration case
shall be final and binding upon all the parties in this case.”
On May 19, 1966, the arbitrator rendered a decision declaring that
Antonio Santos (President) and Bonifacio Flores
(National Treasurer), among others, “are the elected officers and members
of the National Council of the respondent Union for the years 1964-1965 and
therefore the lawful party to
have administered the collective bargaining contract, 1962-1965″.
THE
CASE BEFORE THIS COURT –
On October 23, 1965, while the arbitration proceeding was
pending and before a decision could be rendered therein, the National Brewery
& Allied Industries Labor Union (PAFLU), petitioner in Civil Case No. 56563
of the Court of First Instance of Manila, filed before Us the instant petition
for certiorari with preliminary injunction against Judge Gaudencio
Cloribel, the San Miguel Corporation and the
Philippine Banking Corporation, reiterating in substance the allegations in
the petition for prohibition in said Civil Case No. 56563. In addition, the petitioner alleges that on May 13, 1964, it filed a motion to
lift the order complained of, on the ground that the respondent court
“exceeded its authority and jurisdiction when it issued said order”,
which motion the court denied.
Petitioner’s stand is epitomized in paragraphs 15 and 16 of its petition
as follows:
“15. That respondent Judge, by issuing the order of
April 25, 1964, referred to Annex F hereof, (above referred to), which in
effect holds itself without
jurisdiction to settle the case, as it belongs to the Labor Court, and yet ordered
for the deposit of the union dues, subject of the controversies therein,
exceeded its authority and jurisdiction thereof, as such ancillary order like the
order referred to in annex F could only be issued by the competent court who
has jurisdiction over the main
case to settle the said dispute; (Erlanger & Galinger,
Inc. vs. Erlanger & Galinger Employees Association
(NATU), L?11907, June 24,
1958). There is no
disagreement, as the respondent Judge itself admitted, that Unfair Labor
Practices cases are within the absolute jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial
Relations: (See annex F; PAFLU, et al.,
vs. Barot, Judge, et al., 52 O. G., 6544, Sept. 29,
1956), and that any other matter of controversy which is interwoven with or
interrelated to such Unfair Labor Practices are likewise within the absolute
jurisdiction of said Labor Court (Lakas ng Pagkakaisa sa
Peter Paul vs. Hon. Victoriano, et al., L-9290, Jan.
14, 1958; Benguet Consolidated v. Coto
Labor Union, et al., L-12294, Jan. 23, 1958; SNB v. Hon. Victoriano,
et al., L-12820, Dec. 20, 1957.”
“16. That it is clear therefore from the foregoing
authorities that respondent Judge exceeded his jurisdiction in ordering for
the deposit of Union dues of Petitioner’s Union as the question principally
involved thereto as to who is the rightful set of officers of Petitioner’s
Union is
concededly vested with the Court of Industrial Relations either in that
pending UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CASE No. 4120 referred to in annex F, or
in that Arbitration Case No. 1933-V, before said Labor Court and referred to in that Order marked annex H.”
On October 26, 1965,
this Court resolved to require the respondents to answer the petition and to issue a writ of preliminary injunction
upon petitioner’s filing of a bond in the sum of P500.00. The required bond having been filed, on October
28, 1965, a writ of preliminary injunction was issued “prohibiting enforcement
of Judge Cloribel’s order requiring deposit in the
Court of First Instance.”
Answering the petition, the Philippine Banking Corporation alleges that “. . . . . . it has
absolutely no interest in the order complained of regardless of whether the
order is sustained or set aside on any ground”, and that it had not disregarded the injunction issued in
the case.
The San Miguel Corporation alleges in answer to the petition that
it had complied with the order of the respondent Judge to deposit in court the
money and dues in its hands, intended for delivery to the rightful party.
On November 29, 1965, after securing prior leave of this Court to
intervene, Charles Mitscheck, in his own behalf and
in representation of his faction, filed an “Urgent alternative motion to
dissolve the writ of preliminary injunction issued ex–parte or require the San Miguel Corporation to
deposit the union dues or other assessments due Petitioner Labor Union with this Honorable Court or with any other
court upon its discretion”.
On December 3, 1965, this Court adopted a resolution, disposing
amongst others, thus- “. . . . . on intervenor’s
motion, respondent San Miguel Corporation is hereby ordered to deposit the
Union dues and other assessments due and owing the union NABAILU-PAFLU, and
those from time to time will be due and owing, with the Court of Industrial
Relations”.
Upon the pleadings and annexes thereto filed in the case, the
main issue posed for resolution is whether or not the respondent Judge acted
with jurisdiction or in excess thereof in ordering the deposit with the clerk
of Court of First Instance of Manila of the dues and assessments deducted by
the San Miguel Corporation from the monthly wages of the members of the union
notwithstanding his findings that the same question is involved in case No.
4128-ULP (Unfair Labor Practices) before the Court of Industrial Relations.
If the only issues before
the respondent court in Civil Case No. 56563 relate to the enforcement of the contractual
obligation arising from the provisions of Section 2 of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement, viz., whether or not the San Miguel Corporation
may refuse to remit to the petitioning union the dues and assessments collected
and deducted from the monthly wages of the members of the union, and, with
respect to the impleaded banking institutions,
whether or not they may dishonor the checks drawn by the authorized
representative of the union from its savings or current deposits with said
banks, respondent court would undoubtedly have jurisdiction over the
case. But a more fundamental issue is
raised in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the petition in Civil Case No. 56563 – which
of the two sets of officers representing different registered labor unions
within the industry have the authority to demand compliance and enforcement of
Section 2 of the collective bargaining agreement, with power and authority to
receive money owing to the union and to disburse the same in furtherance of the
affairs of the union. Such an issue
involves, as it does, “internal labor organization procedures” which
falls within the exclusive cognizance of the Court of Industrial Relations
(Phil. Ass. of Free Labor Union (PAFLU) vs.
Padilla, et al., L-11722, Nov. 28, 1959), pursuant to Section 17 of
Republic Act No. 875 providing as follows:
“SEC. 17. Rights
and Conditions of Membership in Labor Organizations. -It is hereby
declared to be the public policy of the Philippines to encourage the following internal
labor organization procedures. A
minimum of ten percent 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.
x x x x x
(b) The members shall be entitled to full and
detailed reports from their officers and representatives of all financial
transactions as provided in the constitution and by-laws of the organization.
(c) They
shall also have the right to elect officers by secret ballot at intervals of
not more than two years and to determine and vote upon the question of striking
or not striking or upon any other question of major policy affecting the entire
membership of the organization.
x x x x x
(f) No officer,
agent or member of a legitimate labor organization shall collect any fees,
dues, or other contributions in behalf of the organization or make any
disbursement of its money or funds unless he is provided with the necessary
authority pursuant to its constitution or by-laws.”
As previously held by
this Court “one reason why cases involving the rights and conditions of
membership in the union or organization
are placed within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial
Relations is “that said court is in
a better position and is relatively more
qualified than ordinary courts to determine said cases, dealing as it does with
problems of management and labor x x x.” (Phil. Land-Air-Sea Labor Union vs. Hon. Ortiz, et al., 103 Phil.
410.)
Indeed, even the respondent
Judge shares the view that it is the Court of Industrial Relations which is
vested with jurisdiction to determine the main issue involved in the case, not
only because the controversy involves “internal labor organization
procedures” but most fundamentally for the reason that Case No. 4128-ULP
is pending before the Court of Industrial Relations in which the issue
involved, according to the respondent Judge, is “the same question
involved in this case”. To hold, as
the respondent Judge in effect held, that the subject-matter involved in Civil
Case No. 56563 is about unfair labor
practices provided under Republic Act No. 875, falling within the jurisdiction
of the Court of Industrial Relations, and at the same time to require the
deposit with the respondent court of the money in the hands of the San Miguel
Corporation, as the respondent Judge
required in the questioned order of April 25, 1964, is to act without or in excess of jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, the order of April 25, 1964 of the respondent
Judge is hereby set aside. No costs.
Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Castro, and Fernando, JJ.,
concur.
Concepcion, C.J., and Dizon, J., on official leave.