MATEO PAGTAKHAN, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, LA PERLA CIGAR & CIGARETTE FACTORY, INC., AND LORENZO LIM, RESPONDENTS.

Pagtakhan versus La Perla Cigar and Cigarette Factory

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Mateo Pagtakhan and some forty two other employees against La Perla Cigar and Cigarette Factory, Incorporated, its manager Lorenzo Lim, and the Court of Industrial Relations. The employees ask the Supreme Court to annul a resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations sitting en banc which set aside the trial judge's award in their favor and sent the unfair labor practice case back for further proceedings. The case matters because it fixes a procedural rule every labor practitioner must know: an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory, it is not appealable, and the mere filing of a motion for reconsideration of that order does not suspend the trial or lift the case to the court en banc.

Procedural History

The employees, through the acting prosecutor of the Court of Industrial Relations, filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against the company and its manager. The case was assigned to a trial judge of that court, who heard the complainants' evidence. After the complainants rested, the respondents moved to dismiss on the ground that the evidence showed no jurisdiction and that the action was barred by laches. The trial judge denied the motion. The respondents moved for reconsideration, then failed to appear at the hearings set for the continuation of the trial. The trial judge nonetheless received no evidence from the respondents and rendered an order finding them guilty of unfair labor practice, ordering reinstatement with back wages. The respondents moved for reconsideration of that order, and the Court of Industrial Relations en banc, after oral argument, issued a resolution setting aside the trial judge's order and returning the case to the trial court principally for the reception of the respondents' evidence. The employees' motion for reconsideration of that resolution was denied. The employees then came to the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari, which the Court gave due course.

Facts

The complainants were employees of the Dimasalang Branch of the company, some having served more than five years. Relations were pleasant until the complainants joined the Federacion Obreros de la Industria de Tabacos de Filipinas, a union of the company's employees. After that, non-union members were allowed to go directly to their machines while union members had to fall in line; preferences in the weighing of tobacco leaves were given to non-union members; and some complainants were told to desist from joining the union.

In May 1956 the Dimasalang Branch burned. The complainants were assigned for temporary employment of three months at the main Parañaque Branch, on the understanding that they would return to Dimasalang once it was rebuilt. Before the three months ended, their temporary employment was discontinued, and the record shows no reason for it. During that period, supervisors tried to persuade the complainants, through their local union president, to switch affiliation to another union, and the attempt failed. The Department of Labor later settled the matter through an agreement giving each complainant 140 pesos for the unexpired portion of the three months, with priority of employment at Dimasalang once it reopened.

In April 1959 the Dimasalang Branch reopened, but none of the complainants was given employment. The trial judge saw in these events a pattern of discriminatory activity, a pervasive interference consisting of seemingly isolated incidents which, viewed in their entirety, unmistakably showed discrimination against the complainants for their union membership.

Issues

• Whether or not a proceeding before a judge of the Court of Industrial Relations sitting as a trial judge is suspended once a motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order of that trial judge is filed.
• Whether or not the filing of a motion to reconsider an interlocutory order of a trial judge automatically elevates the case to the court en banc, suspending the proceedings before the trial judge until the en banc resolves the motion.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 35 of the Rules of Court, on demurrer to evidence, provides:

Section 1. Effect of judgment on demurrer to evidence. — After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence, the defendant without waiving his right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not granted, may move for a dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. However, if the motion is granted and the order of dismissal was reversed on appeal, the movant loses his right to present evidence in his behalf.

This is the provision under which the respondents' motion to dismiss was treated, and it shows that the denial of such a motion leaves the movant free to present his evidence.

Section 1 of Commonwealth Act Numbered One Hundred Three provides:

The Judges (of the CIR) shall act on such matters as the presiding Judge may designate and each of them shall have power to preside over hearing of cases assigned to him and to render decisions thereon.

This provision confirms that a trial judge of the Court of Industrial Relations may hear and decide a case assigned to him, so the filing of a reconsideration motion before him does not strip him of authority to continue the trial.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the en banc erred in ruling that the trial judge should have suspended the hearing upon the filing of the motion for reconsideration of the order denying the motion to dismiss. An order denying a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order, and an interlocutory order is not appealable. The Court recalled its ruling in Sitchon versus Sheriff of Occidental Negros, which explained that appeals are allowed only from final orders to avoid multiplicity of appeals in a single action, which must necessarily suspend the hearing and decision on the merits during the pendency of the appeal. That rule had been applied to labor cases, and the Court now extended it to interlocutory orders issued by a trial judge of the Court of Industrial Relations, not only to those issued by the court en banc, because the common objective is to discourage piecemeal appeals that delay the speedy disposition of cases.

On the second issue, the Court held that the filing of a motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order does not automatically elevate the case to the en banc. The proceeding before a trial judge may end in a judgment that completely disposes of the case, and appeal to the en banc by motion for reconsideration should refer only to a decision or order that is final, one that has finally disposed of the pending action so that nothing more can be done with it in the trial court. The Court also noted that the respondents' motion to dismiss was in substance a demurrer to evidence, and that under the rule the movant does not waive his right to offer evidence if the motion is not granted.

Doctrine

An order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and is not appealable. The settled rule barring appeals from interlocutory orders applies to orders issued by the Court of Industrial Relations en banc as well as to those issued by its trial judges, the common objective being to avoid multiplicity of appeals and to discourage piecemeal appeals that delay the speedy disposition of cases. The filing of a motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order does not automatically elevate the case to the en banc and does not suspend the proceedings before the trial judge. Appeal to the en banc by motion for reconsideration lies only from a final decision or order, one that has finally disposed of the pending action so that nothing more can be done with it in the trial court. A party who demurs to the evidence without waiving his right to present evidence may still prove his defense if the demurrer is denied.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations en banc, and reinstated the trial judge's order finding the respondents guilty of unfair labor practice and ordering reinstatement with back wages.

Remember This

Memorize the line: an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory, not appealable, and a motion for reconsideration of it neither suspends the trial nor elevates the case to the en banc. Examiners use this case on the final judgment rule, on demurrer to evidence under Rule 35, and on the authority of a trial judge of the Court of Industrial Relations to hear and decide assigned cases.