ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION, PETITIONER, VS. JUDGE AMADOR E. GOMEZ, JUDGE JOSE C. BORROMEO, AND SUPERIOR GAS AND EQUIPMENT CO. OF CEBU, INC., RESPONDENTS.

Following are the facts that spawned the present proceedings:

On January 1, 1965,
Associated Labor Union^[1]
and Superior Gas and Equipment Co. of Cebu, Inc.,^[2]
entered into a collective bargain­ing contract. 
It was to expire on January 1,
1966.  Prior to the
contract’s expiry, union and employer started negotiations for its
renewal.  Late in February, 1966, while
bargaining was in progress, 12 of Sugeco’s employees
resigned from the Union. 
Negotiations were broken.  On March 1, 1966, the Union
wrote Sugeco.  There, request was made that unless the 12
resigned employees^[3]
could produce a clearance from the Union, they be not
allowed in the meantime to report for work. 
On the same day, Sugeco’s attorney rejected
the request.  The reasons given are that
irreparable injury would ensue, that the bargaining contract had lapsed, and
that the Company could no longer demand from its employees the requested
clearance.  Sugeco
made it understood that after the 12 men would have returned into the Union
fold, said company would then be “in a position to negotiate again for the
renewal of the collective bargaining contract”.  Also on the same day, March 1, the Union
wrote Sugeco, charged the latter with bargaining in
bad faith, and its supervisors with “campaigning for the resignation of
members of this Union”.  The Union there served
notice “that unless the aforementioned unfair labor practice acts will
immediately be stopped and a collective bargaining agreement be signed between
your company and this union immediately after receipt of this letter, this
union will declare a strike against your management and correspondingly
establish picket lines in any place where your business may be
found”.  On March 3, 1966, counsel for Sugeco
wrote the Union stating that, with the resignation of
union members aforesaid, the Union was no longer the
representative of the majority of the employees “for purposes of
negotiation and recognition”.

On March 4, the Union struck, picketed the
Basak (Mandawe) plant of Sugeco.

The next day, March 5,
1966, Sugeco went to the Court of First
Ins­tance of Cebu (Case No. R-9221, entitled
“Superior Gas and Equipment Co. of Cebu, lnc., petitioner, vs. Associated Labor Union,
respondent”), praying that the Union be restrained from alleged illegal
picketing activities at its Basak plant, and also
from picketing Sugeco’s offices at Juan Luna street, Cebu City, and its other offices located elsewhere in the
Philippines.

On the same date, March
5, 1966, upon a bond of P5,000.00, res­pondent Judge Amador E.
Gomez, purportedly upon the authority of the Rules of Court,^[4]
issued ex-parte  the writ of preliminary injunction prayed
for.  The Union
moved to reconsider.  Ground, inter
alia, is that the court of first instance had
no jurisdiction over the subject-matter – unfair labor practice.  It was the turn of the other respondent,
Judge Jose C. Borromeo, to refuse reconsideration.

Meanwhile, on March 5,
1966 – on the same day the Court of First Instance complaint was
filed by Sugeco against the Union
– the latter lodged with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR, for short) a charge for unfair
labor practice against Sugeco, its general manager, Concepcion Y. Lua, and its two
supervisors, Nestor Yu and Mariano Nulla.  The Union
there averred that said respondents coerced and exerted pressure upon the union
members to resign, as they did resign, from the Union;
and that such resignations were seized upon by Sugeco
to refuse further negotiations
with the Union. 
Offshoot is the complaint for unfair labor practice registered in the
CIE on April 29, 1968 by
its Acting Prosecutor.^[5]

On May 9, 1966,
the Union came to this Court on certiorari and pro­hibition.  The Union here prays
that respondent judges of the Court of First Instance of Cebu
be declared without jurisdiction over the subject matter of the petition in
Civil Case No. R-9221 aforesaid; that the writ of preliminary injunction
therein issued be annulled; and that said judges be directed to dismiss said
case.  The Union
also asks that pendente lite
the respondent judges be stopped from further proceeding with the case just
adverted to.

This Court, on May 16,
1966, issued the solicited cease-and-desist order.

The quintessence of this case is jurisdiction.

First, we go to the background facts.  We take stock of Sugeco’s
pe­tition against the Union in the Court of First
Instance of Cebu (Case No. R-9221).  Read as it should be, Sugeco
in paragraph 10 thereof charges the Union with
“coercing the resigned employees to rejoin” the same.  And this, obviously to neutralize the Union
claim that Sugeco was coercing and cajoling its
members to separate therefrom.^[6]

This charge and countercharge require us to focus attention on
the Industrial Peace Act.^[7]
Sections 4(a) and (b) thereof recite, as follows:

“(a) It shall be unfair labor practice for an employer:

(1) To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise
of their rights guaran­teed in section three;

x                              x                                  x                                  x

“(b) It shall be
unfair labor practice for a labor orga­nization or its Agents:

(1) To restrain or
coerce employees in the exercise of their rights under section three x x x“.

And Section 3 referred to in Sections
4(a) and (b), provides:

“x x x
Employees shall have the right to self-organization and to form, join or assist
labor organiza­tions of their own choosing for the purpose of collective
bargaining through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual
aid or protection.  x x
x“

The broad sweep of the law suggests that the coercion or cajolery
of employees heretofore described, by management or union, is unfair labor
practice.^[8]
Therefore, the alleged act of coercing or instigating union members to resign therefrom is clearly within the coverage of the
proscription.  It is aimed at crippling
the Union, throwing it off balance, destroying its
bargaining authority.  It is an attack
against the Magna Carta of Labor.  By the same token, the charge levelled by Sugeco against the Union
that the latter “is coercing the resigned employees to rejoin the Union”
is no less an unfair labor practice.

Jurisdiction then is exclusively vested in the Court of Industrial
Relations.  For, explicit in Section 5(a)
of the Industrial Peace Act is the precept that –

“The Court shall have jurisdiction over the prevention of
unfair labor practices and is empowered to prevent any person from engaging in
any unfair labor practice.  This po­wer
shall be exclusive and shall not be affected by any
other means of adjustment or prevention that has been or may be established by
an agreement, code, law or otherwise.” [Emphasis supplied]

Nor will Sugeco’s averment below that
it suffers damages by reason of the strike, work to defeat the CIR’s jurisdiction to hear the unfair labor practice
charge.  Reason for this is that the
right to damages “would still have to depend on the evidence in the unfair
labor practice case” – in the CIR.^[9]
To hold otherwise is to sanction split jurisdiction – which is obnoxious to the
orderly administration of justice.^[10]

The stance that the ULP case initiated by the Union
in the CIE was an afterthought, will not carry the day for Sugeco.  That case was filed on the very same day Sugeco went to the Court of First Instance – which anyway,
is without jurisdiction over the subject-matter.  The Union struck
precisely because of the unfair labor practice allegedly indulged in by Sugeco.  So that, the
ULP case was not calculated merely to divest the Cebu
court of first instance of jurisdiction which it did not possess.^[11]

A rule buttressed upon statute and reason and frequently
reiterated in jurisprudence is that labor cases involving unfair labor
practice are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the CIR.  By now, this rule has ri­pened into
dogma.  It thus commands adherence, not
breach.^[12]
This Court once pointedly remarked that “[t]he policy of social justice
guaranteed by the Constitution demands that when cases appear to involve
labor disputes  courts should take
care in the exercise of their prerogatives and discretion”.^[13]

The Court of First Instance of Cebu, we
rule, is without jurisdict­ion over the subject-matter of Case No. R-9221.  Its judges, therefore, did not have the
authority to provide for an ancillary remedy in that case.  Hence, the injunction below complained of was
issued coram non judice.  It is void.

For the reasons given,

(1)  
the petition herein for a writ of certiorari and
prohibition is hereby granted, – and the writ of preliminary injunction we
issued on May 16, 1966 is
declared permanent;

(2)  
the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the
Court of First Instance of Cebu in Case No. R-9221,
entitled “Superior Gas and Equip­ment Co. of Cebu, Inc., petitioner, vs. Associated Labor Union, res­pondent”,
is hereby declared null and void; and

(3)  
the respondent judges, or whoever shall take
their place, are hereby directed to dismiss the said Case No. R-9221.

Costs against respondent Superior Gas and Equipment Co. of Cebu, Inc.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar, and Castro,
JJ., concur.

^[1]
Hereinafter referred to as Union, a duly
registered labor organization under Republic Act 875.

^[2]
To be referred to herein as Sugeco, a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines.

^[3]
(1) Eduardo Aguanta, (2) Eduardo Alforque,
(3) Cirilo Barrientos, (4) Rodulfo Gerebese, (5) Alejo Gullin, (3) Camilo Hatamosa, (7) Cirilo Macasero, (8) Emiliano Macasero, (9) Hosalio Occo, (10) Francisco Saberon, (11) Felix Tan, (12) Eraulio
Ycong.

^[4]
Rule 58, 1964 Rules of Court.

^[5]
Case No. 400-ULP-Cebu, entitled “The Associated
Labor Union, complainant vs. Superior Gas and
Equipment Co. of Cebu,
Inc., respondent.”

^[6]
“Annexes D and E of the petition below; Annex F of the Union
petition herein, Record, p. 64.

^[7]
United Pepsi-Cola Sales Organization vs. Cañizares,
102 Phil. 887, 891.

^[8]
Erlanger & Galinger, Inc. vs. Erlanger
& Galinger Employees Association,G.R.
No. L-11907, June 24, 1958,
citing National Garments and Textiles Workers Union vs. Caluag, G.R. No. L-9104, September 10, 1956.

^[9]
Id.

^[10]
Bay View Hotel, Inc. vs. Manila Hotel Workers’ Union,
G.R. No. L-21803, December 17, 1966.

^[11]
Naric Workers’ Union vs.
Alvendia, G.R. No. L-14439, March 25, 1960.

^[12]
Pambujan Sur United Mine
Workers vs. Samar Mining Co., Inc., 94 Phil.
932, 940, 941-942; Paflu vs. Tan, 99 Phil.
854, 866; Reyes vs. Tan, 99 Phil. 880, 883; NGTW vs. Caluag, 99 Phil. 1067; SMB Box Factory Workers’ Union vs.
Victoriano, 102 Phil. 646, 651-652; Consolidated
Labor Association of the Philippines vs. Caluag,
55 O.G. No. 22, pp. 4037, 4041-4042; Erlanger & Galinger,
Inc. vs. Erlanger & Galinger Employees’ Association, supra; Naric Workers’ Union vs. Alvendia,
supra; Jornales vs. Central Azucarera de Bais, G.R. No. L-15287,
September 30, 1963; Malayang Mang­gagawa sa Esso vs. Esso Standard Eastern, Inc., G.R. No. L-24224, July 30, 1965.

^[13]
Associated Watchmen and Security Union vs. United States Lines, 54 O.G.
No. 31, pp. 7397, 7400; emphasis supplied.