NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION SUPERVISORS’ UNION, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION EMPLOYEES & WORKERS ASSOCIATION, ATTY. SIMPLICIO S. BALCOS …

On April 16, 1968,
upon motion of herein petitioner, We issued a writ, of
preliminary injunction to this effect:

“NOW, THEREFORE, until further orders from this Court, You
(respondent National Power Corporation) are hereby restrained from making any
deductions from the salary differentials and/or salary increases of the
supervisors of the NPC corresponding to 20% attorney’s fee payable to the
respondent Atty. Simplicio S. Balcos;
and You (respondent Hon. Judge Arsenio Martinez) are hereby
restrained from taking and conducting any further proceedings in Case No.
81-IPA of the court of Industrial Relations, entitled ‘NPC Employees and Workers Association
versus National Power Corporation, respondent; National Power Corporation
Supervisors’ Union, movant‘, insofar a it involves
and/or affects herein petitioner.”

On
February 28, 1969 Carmen Quilop and others, through
Atty. Jimenez B. Buendia, filed a motion praying for the issuance of an order clarifying whether or not
the above injunction applies to them, and if it does not, to authorize the
Court of Industrial Relations to proceed with hearings to determine the pay
that movants should receive in the light of Republic
Act No. 4657 (Teves Law) and the provisions of the
existing Collective Bargaining Agreement between the National Power Corporation
and the National Power Employees and Workers Association.

It
appears that in connection with an agreement supplemental to the existing
collective bargaining agreement between the Corporation and the Association,
approved by the Court of
Industrial Relations in its order of January
8, 1968, a petition was
filed on March 27 of said year to implement said order.  The Court; resolving said motion, ruled that
the salary or pay to be
received by the movants, considering the provisions
of Republic Act 4657 (Teves Law) and those of the
basic collective bargaining agreement “will be determined by the
Court” and, as a matter of fact, set the case for hearing in connection
therewith on November 26, 1968.  This hearing, however, was not held in view
of the objection interposed by the National Power Corporation Employees and
Workers Association who claimed that
the holding thereof would violate the writ of preliminary injunction issued by
us.

In
connection with the motion under consideration, we required the
interested parties to submit their comments. 
Petitioner, through counsel, submitted its comments on March 18, 1969
saying, infect that as movants are not its members,
petitioner is not concerned in any proceedings below as long as they do not in any manner affect or
involve its rights and interests and those of its members.  For its part, the National Power Corporation
Employees and Workers Association, through counsel, submitted its comments on
March 26, 1969 objecting to the holding of
the hearing until such time as the question of whether movants
are supervisors has been determined and suggesting that their remedy is to move
for a reconsideration of the court’s order dated February 27, 1969 holding in abeyance the proceedings in Case No. 81-IPA until after the Supreme
Court has dissolved the writ of preliminary injunction issued by it in this
case and/or the status of the movants has been finally determined.

The
writ of preliminary injunction in question mainly restrains the respondent NPC from making deductions from the salary differentials and/or salary
increases of the supervisors of the NPC corresponding to 20% attorney’s fees
payable to respondent Atty. Simplicio Balcos, and to this effect further restrained the respondent judge from taking and conducting further
proceedings in Case No. 81-IPA in so far as it involves or affects herein
petitioner.

It is our view, therefore, that hearings to
be held by the Court of Industrial Relations in relation to its order of
January 8, 1968, for the purpose of determining the pay
to be received by movants, and even for the purpose
of determining the question of whether or not they belong to the supervisors
class, will not violate the writ of preliminary injunction thus issued by this
Court, as long as no order is issued providing for deductions from the salary
differentials or increases of the supervisors of the NPC, or granting any relief adversely affecting petitioner
herein.

Reyes, J.B.L., Acting C.J., Makalintal,
Zaldivar, Sanchez, Fernando, Teehankee,
and Barredo, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, C.J., and
Castro, J., on leave.

Capistrano, J., did not take
part.