YOUNG MEN LABOR UNION STEVEDORES, PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Young Men Labor Union Stevedores versus Court of Industrial Relations

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by the Young Men Labor Union Stevedores against the Court of Industrial Relations and the other respondents, arising from a bitter rivalry between two stevedoring unions over the loading work at the Port of Nasipit in Agusan. The industrial court had ordered that the existing fifty-fifty arrangement between the two unions continue until a certification election could determine which of them should deal with the company through collective bargaining. The case matters because it settles two enduring points: that certification election proceedings fall within the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations, and that a party who invokes a court's jurisdiction and submits to it cannot later turn around and deny that same jurisdiction.

Procedural History

The company, Nasipit Lumber Company, filed a petition with the Court of Industrial Relations praying that the two unions be enjoined to observe the status quo, and that the court decide which union should receive the stevedoring job or whether the fifty-fifty arrangement should be followed. After bloody incidents broke out, the company filed a second petition seeking restraining orders against both unions and asking that the injunctions be made permanent. Both unions initially moved to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, but both later withdrew their motions and voluntarily submitted to the industrial court, presenting their evidence. Judge Arsenio Martinez rendered a decision ordering the parties to continue observing the fifty-fifty agreement until a certification election undertaken by the Department of Labor should decide which union would have the collective bargaining relationship with the company. The union and the company each moved for reconsideration insofar as the decision ordered a certification election, and when the court en banc denied both motions, the union interposed the present petition for review before the Supreme Court.

Facts

On April 25, 1961, Nasipit Lumber Company entered into a contract with both the Young Men Labor Union Stevedores and the Victory Stevedoring and Labor Union, by which the two unions bound themselves to undertake the stevedoring and loading jobs of the company's export products from the Port of Nasipit on a fifty-fifty basis. The agreement was concluded in a conference called for that purpose, attended by Philippine Constabulary officials, the Provincial Fiscal of Agusan, the Justice of the Peace and Chief of Police of Nasipit, and the officials and representatives of the company and the two unions.

On July 20, 1961, the Young Men Labor Union demanded that the company withdraw the loading jobs from the Victory union on the ground that the latter's registration permit from the Department of Labor had been cancelled. The Victory union refused to abandon its share, insisting that the cancellation order had not yet become final. On August 2, 1961, the Young Men union sent a notice of picketing, threatening a picket line beginning August 9, 1961, to continue uninterrupted until the company stopped the loading and unloading of cargoes by the Victory union or reassigned the work to it.

On August 9, 1961, the company filed its petition with the Court of Industrial Relations. On August 23, 1961, after a series of bloody incidents resulting from the picketing by the Young Men union and retaliation from the Victory union, the company filed a second petition praying for restraining orders against the officials, members, and agents of both unions, and that the injunctions be made permanent.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Industrial Relations had jurisdiction over a controversy involving a certification election between two or more unions.
• Whether or not the petitioner is estopped from questioning that jurisdiction after withdrawing its motion to dismiss and voluntarily submitting to it.
• Whether or not the industrial court erred in ordering a certification election to determine which union should undertake the stevedoring job.
• Whether or not the industrial court prohibited the petitioner from exercising its constitutional right to picket.
• Whether or not the industrial court held that the petitioner is entitled only to fifty percent of the stevedoring work.

Applicable Provisions

Section 12, paragraph (b), of Republic Act Number 875, the Industrial Peace Act, provides:

Section 12 (b), Republic Act 875.

This is the provision the Court cites as the source of the industrial court's jurisdiction over certification election matters involving two or more unions, and as the sanction for the order requiring the Department of Labor to hold the election.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the industrial court was not bereft of jurisdiction. While the petitioner anchored its argument on the doctrine in the earlier case of Paflu versus Tan, which enumerated the cases over which the industrial court may exercise jurisdiction, the Court explained that the enumeration does not exclude a controversy of this nature, because it involves a certification election. Matters pertaining to a certification election involving two or more unions are addressed to the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations under Section 12, paragraph (b), of Republic Act Number 875.

On the second issue, the Court held that the petitioner is now estopped to question the jurisdiction of the lower court, since it withdrew its motion to dismiss raising that issue, voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction, and presented its evidence. The Court adopted the reasoning that one who subjects himself to the jurisdiction of a court becomes subject to any valid claim asserted against him directly relating to the subject matter of his voluntarily initiated proceeding, and that to permit one to invoke the exercise of jurisdiction and then reverse its order upon the ground that it had no jurisdiction would be to allow one to trifle with courts.

On the third issue, the Court found no error in the order requiring the Department of Labor to hold a certification election to determine which union should undertake the stevedoring job. This is sanctioned by Section 12, paragraph (b), of Republic Act Number 875, and is the only expedient way by which the rivalry between the two unions may be solved to avoid friction and other unfortunate incidents. Because certification proceedings are investigatory in nature and entrusted exclusively to the industrial court, the Court will not interfere absent a grave abuse of discretion, and no such abuse was shown.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the claim of prohibition against picketing is not correct. What the court prohibited was the commission of illegal acts in connection with picketing, which under our jurisprudence can be lawfully done. The picketing had in fact resulted in many bloody incidents because of acts of retaliation by the rival union.

On the fifth issue, the Court clarified that the industrial court did not hold that the petitioner is entitled only to fifty percent of the stevedoring work. What it declared was that the fifty-fifty arrangement should continue until the result of the certification election shall have become final and executory and a collective bargaining contract entered into between the parties, a step the Court found proper considering the situation then obtaining.

Doctrine

First, a controversy involving a certification election between two or more unions falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations under Section 12, paragraph (b), of Republic Act Number 875. Second, a party who withdraws its motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, voluntarily submits to the court, and presents its evidence is estopped from later questioning that jurisdiction. Third, certification proceedings are investigatory in nature and are entrusted exclusively to the industrial court, so the Supreme Court will not interfere with that tribunal's discretion and judgment absent a clear and patent abuse. Fourth, the right to picket is recognized, but illegal acts committed in connection with picketing may be enjoined.

Disposition

The order appealed from was affirmed, with costs against the petitioner, the Young Men Labor Union Stevedores.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that one who invokes a court's jurisdiction and submits to it cannot later deny that same jurisdiction. Examiners like to use this case on the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations over certification elections and on the doctrine of estoppel by voluntary submission.