G.R. No. L-25799. August 31, 1971
UNION OBRERA DE TABACO, INC., TITO BELANGEL, ANDRES BRON, EXEQUIEL BERCES, ANDRES BORJAL, EMILIANO VOSOTROS, PEDRO BRAGAIS, SERGIO CALLA AND SOFRONIO BREVA, PETITIONERS, VS. HON…
CASTRO, J.:
The protracted struggle
for supremacy within the ranks of the petitioner Union Obrera
de Tabaco, Inc., a duly registered labor organization
with headquarters in Tabaco, Albay,
was brought to a head when the respondent Perfecto Quicho,
Judge of the Court of First Instance of Albay, Branch
I, issued on March 8, 1966, in civil case 3182, a writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction which ordered, among other things, the placing of the faction headed
by the respondent Floro Buenconsejo
in possession and control of the Union’s headquarters and the ejectment therefrom of the other
faction under the petitioner Tito Belangel. A violent encounter between the two
contending groups was narrowly averted when, at dusk of the same day, the
provincial sheriff of Albay attempted to enforce the
court’s writ. On the following day,
March 9, at the instance of the respondents Buenconsejo,
et al., the court below issued a “breakthrough” order to give teeth
to its injunction, directing the PC command in Tabaco
to assist the sheriff in its enforcement.
The execution of this last order, however, was put off when the sheriff
entered into a three-day moratorium with the petitioner Belangel
to fend off imminent violence in the dispute which affected nearly a thousand
actively interested parties. On March 11
the petitioners Union, Tito Belangel,
Andres Bron, Exequiel Berces, Andres Borjal, Emiliano Vosotros, Pedro Bragais, Sergio Calla and Sofronio
Breva came to this Court by way of a special civil
action of certiorari and prohibition with prayer for a preliminary injunction. On March 15 we issued a temporary
restraining order directing the
respondent judge to desist from enforcing his writ until further orders.
The background facts are supplied by the pleadings of the parties
and the annexes attached thereto.
It appears that the
continuing feud between Buenconsejo’s group, on the
one hand, and that of Belangel’s, upon the other, is
part of the history of the Union Obrera de Tabaco, Inc.,[1] an organization of three decades’
standing. Buenconsejo
and several others were suspended a few years back from their membership in that
Union which has been largely dominated by Belangel and his group.
A case for unfair labor practice was subsequently lodged by Buenconsejo and similarly suspended members against Belangel and company, and the same was docketed in the
Court of Industrial Relations as CIR case 4052-ULP.
The petitioners Tito Belangel, et al.,
allege in their petition before us that on January 31, 1966, the Registrar of Labor Organizations of
the Department of Labor approved a membership resolution postponing the Union’s
general elections, fixed by the organization’s governing laws for March 6, 1966, to March 7 of the
following year. The petitioners further
allege that adequate notice of this postponement was conveyed to all union
members prior to March 6.
On February 8, 1966,
however, Buenconsejo filed a supplementary petition
for injunction in case 4052-ULP of the CIR, alleging that he was being unjustly
prevented from running for the office of Union president in the election set
for March 6, 1966 and that
signatures of members were being illegally collected to insure the election of
Belangel, his rival.
In his prayer, Buenconsejo asked the CIR to
order the Union and its incumbent officers to proceed
with the general election of March 6, and, further, to recognize Buenconsejo’s candidacy for president. Buenconsejo also
asked the CIR for assistance in the conduct of that election.
On February 12, 1966,
before Buenconsejo’s supplementary petition could be
acted upon, a decision was rendered in the main case by Judge Emiliano Tabigne, reinstating Buenconsejo to full membership in the Union. This latter decision apparently signaled the
beginning of a revitalized struggle for the control of the organization.
In their answer filed
with this Court, the respondents Buenconsejo, et al.
allege that on March 1, 1966, pursuant to their request, the
Undersecretary of the Department of Labor and officer-in-charge of the Bureau
of Labor Relations instructed two of the Department’s representatives to
proceed to Tabaco to observe the conduct of the
general election set for March 6. The
respondents further allege that on March 4, a general membership meeting
(obviously without the participation and sanction of the Union’s incumbent
officers including Belangel) was held by the Union
and that it was there decided by the majority that the March 6 election would
be held as originally set by the Union’s rules.
At about the same time, two representatives of the Department of Labor
reportedly requested the Union‘s
secretary in Tabaco for a complete list of its
eligible voters. (No indication in the
records appears as to whether or not the request was heeded.) On March 5 Buenconsejo requested the assistance of both the Philippine
Constabulary and the local police in the conduct of the election scheduled for
the following day. Finally, on the
morning of March 6, Buenconsejo presented himself and
his followers, together with the government representatives he had earlier
mustered, at the doors of the Union‘s
building in Tabaco and requested Belangel
for the use of the Union hall for their projected election. The request was allegedly rejected by the
latter on the ground that the general election had been earlier officially
postponed for the following year. Unable
to make any headway with the incumbent tenants of the Union‘s building, Buenconsejo and
his group left and conducted their election elsewhere in Tabaco. Buenconsejo was
subsequently proclaimed winner with a vote of 623 as against Belangel’s 39 votes.
Others in Buenconsejo’s ticket were similarly
proclaimed. On March 7 the elected
winners took their oath of office.
In their petition at bar,
the petitioners Belangel, et al. contend that the
election of March 6 was a farce because only 112 of a total of 994 eligible
voters took part therein, the rest being of questionable status. The petitioners add that there were no
prior notice and publication respecting the election as required by the Union’s
governing laws nor were the proper electoral board and committee on electoral
protests constituted.
In any event, on March 8, a
complaint docketed as civil case 3182 was filed by Buenconsejo
and his company of elected officials with the Court of First Instance of Albay, Branch I, against Tito Belangel
and others for usurpation of organization functions. The complaint contained an ex parte petition for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction for the immediate ouster of
the defendants and for the installation of Buenconsejo
and those supposedly elected with him.
On the same day, the respondent judge issued the writ asked for and
followed the same with a “breakthrough” order the day after.
Hence the present action for certiorari and prohibition.
Lest this Court be misunderstood,
the validity of the election of March 6, 1966 which allegedly saw the election of Buenconsejo and others to positions of power in the Union, is not an issue in the present
case. The recitals above were made only
for the purpose of providing a full understanding of the nature of the dispute
between the parties.
The sole question posed
to us by the petition at bar is, whether the Court of First Instance of Albay, presided by the respondent judge, had jurisdiction
to issue in civil case 3182 the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction of
March 8, 1966. But beyond this is the
more basic question of whether that court had jurisdiction, in the first place,
over the subject-matter of the case before it.
This Court has invariably
held that the jurisdiction of a court over the
subject-matter of an action is determined by the allegations of the complaint.[2]
Let us therefore turn our
attention to the complaint filed by the respondents Buenconsejo,
et al., dated March 8, 1966, on the basis of which the writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction in question was issued. In substance, it is there alleged that the
Union Obrera de Tabaco,
Inc. is a duly registered labor organization; that Buenconsejo
and his co-plaintiffs are duly elected officers of the Union, having been
elected in the election of March 6, 1966 held pursuant to the provisions of the
Union’s constitution; and that Belangel and his
co-defendants have continuously refused to relinquish the positions previously
held by them in the organization. Buenconsejo and company invoke article 26 of the Union‘s constitution as the primary authority
sustaining their right to office. This
article reads:
“Elections — The Board of Directors as provided for in
Article 4, Chapter 2, shall hold office for two (2) years and shall be elected
only by the DIRECT VOTES of all members thru SECRET BALLOT to be held on the
FIRST SUNDAY of March, commencing MARCH 1964; Provided that in such election at least more than one-half (1/2) of the
registered and qualified members shall take part, and the newly elected
officers shall take oath and qualify on the day following their election.”
Ultimately, the mischief sought to be removed by the plaintiffs’
action is the alleged flaunting by Belangel and the
other incumbent officials of the right of the membership of the Union
to change its leaders. This actionable
wrong is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial
Relations. Section 17(c) of Republic Act
875, as amended (otherwise known as the Industrial Peace Act), provides that
violation of the right of the members of a labor organization to elect officers
by secret ballot at intervals of not more than two years shall, after efforts
to correct such violation through procedures evolved by the organization itself,
be disposed of by the Court of Industrial Relations as in “unfair labor
practice” cases. Clearly, the Court
of First Instance of Albay had no power to hear the
case filed by the respondents Buenconsejo, et al.,
let alone issue a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction in relation
thereto.[3]
By way of postscript to this decision, it should be stated that
on May 7, 1966, the
respondents Buenconsejo, et al. filed with this Court
an urgent motion to restrain the petitioners Belangel,
et al. from carrying out a projected union election set for May 29, 1966. In their telegraphic comment of May 26, 1966, the petitioners opposed
this motion on the ground that Buenconsejo and his
group are deemed to have withdrawn the same when they subsequently filed their
certificates of candidacy for the May
29, 1966 poll. Further, the
petitioners alleged that the projected election had been submitted to the CIR
in case 4052-ULP(2) for approval and supervision. Another wire sent by the petitioners on May 27, 1966 informed this Court that
the CIR had already approved the holding of the election on May 29. In a subsequent manifestation, the
petitioners confirmed the contents of their two telegrams and further informed
this Court that on April 30, 1966, a general membership meeting had revoked a
prior resolution postponing the Union’s general election for one year and had
instead decided to hold the same on May 29, 1966; that on May 29, 1966, the election was so held with
the attendance of two hearing commissioners of the CIR and a representative of
the Department of Labor; and that the result of the election has been submitted
to the CIR for its consideration and approval incident to the unfair labor
practice case pending therewith.
On July 20, 1966
the petitioners furnished this Court with copies of the order of the CIR
approving the result of the election of May
29, 1966, together with the corresponding reports of the hearing
commissioners. The present petition was
set for oral argument on July 22, 1966
but only the petitioners appeared to argue their case. The respondents Buenconsejo,
et al. filed a written manifestation submitting the case for decision without
further argument. The respondents’
motion of May 7, 1966 has
thus been rendered moot and academic by the above-narrated supervening events.
Nor is the said motion the only matter that has become
academic. In the light of the
supervening events above adverted to, it is indubitable that the issues posed
by the complaint a quo have all been resolved by the Court of
Industrial Relations in case 4052-ULP (2) with finality and to the satisfaction
of all the parties. No useful purpose
will therefore be served in lengthening the life of the case pending in the
court a quo.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition at bar is dismissed, and the
case below, civil case 3182, is hereby likewise ordered dismissed. No pronouncement as to costs.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Villamor, and Makasiar, JJ., concur.
[1]
Buenconsejo vs. CIR, et al., L-22508, November 25, 1968, 26 SCRA 19.
[2]
The latest case on this point is
Bautista vs. Fernandez, L-24062, April 30, 1971, 38 SCRA 548, 552. Cf. Rustan
Supervisory Union vs. Dalisay,
L-32891, April 29, 1971, 38
SCRA 500, 505.
[3]
PLASLU vs. Ortiz, 103 Phil. 409, 411.