NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SUGARCANE PLANTERS, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET. AL., RESPONDENTS.

On March 10, 1959, the Federation of Free Farmers, which is composed
of laborers working in the sugar plantations of several planters in
Negros Occidental, filed a petition before the Court of Industrial
Relations praying, among other things, for payment of the wages of its
laborers as required by law, for certification election with a view to
selecting the collective bargaining unit, of said laborers, and for
settlement of their differential pay for three years, as well as for
settlement of unfair labor practices which the union contemplates to
file against the planters.

The National Federation of Sugarcane, Planters, one of respondents,
filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction and
insufficiency of the petition. Said respondent likewise asked for a
bill of particulars in view of the ambiguous averments of the petition.

The motion to dismiss was set for hearing at which both parties
appeared and argued, but before action thereon was taken, the union
filed an urgent motion praying that the petition be set for hearing in
different towns of the province of Antique taking into account the
different places of residence of respondents.

In the meantime, the industrial court, considering that most of the
movants have already filed their answers to the petition, and that the
grounds on which the motion to dismiss is based do not appear to be
indubitable, resolved to defer action on the motion until after the
hearing of the petition on the merits. Five days after the issuance of
this resolution, the industrial court acceded to the motion to set the
petition for hearing as prayed for, and, accordingly, it set the same
for hearing on different dates and at various towns of Antique, namely,
Patnongon, Bugason, Valderama, Culasi, and Tibiao.

The National Federation of Sugarcane Planters objected to the
setting of the petition for hearing at the places abovementioned not
only because the same would work inconvenience and prejudice to its
members but also because the same was acted upon without affording
respondents an opportunity to be heard in connection with said urgent
motion and even before the court had passed upon the issue relative to
its lack of jurisdiction over the petition.

And this objection having been overruled, respondents interposed the
present petition for certiorari imputing grave abuse of discretion to
the Court of Industrial Relations.

The petition was given due course with preliminary injunction.

The claim of petitioners that the motion to set the petition for
hearing was acted upon by the Court of Industrial Relations even before
it has passed upon the issue of jurisdiction raised by them appears to
have no basis. The record shows that on May 6, 1959, the Court of
Industrial Relations issued an order deferring action on the motion to
dismiss until after the hearing of the petition on the merits
considering that most of the movants have already answered the petition
and the grounds on which the motion is based do not appear to be
indubitable. The court also found that to substantiate said grounds
there was need to present evidence and in order to avoid duplicity of
trial it was deemed proper that the petition and the motion be heard
jointly. It should be noted that while the notice of hearing is dated
April 23, 1959, the same was actually released by the industrial court
five days after the issuance of the order postponing action on the
motion to dismiss. The contention that the setting of the petition for
hearing at different towns of the province of Antique would work
prejudice and inconvenience of petitioners is also untenable it
appearing that most of said petitioners have their haciendas
and houses in said province while most of the labor contractors who
recruited the seasonal laborers are also from Antique and have their
houses there and spend a great part of the year in the aforesaid
province. It likewise appears that the distances between the different
towns where the hearings were set are short and there are good roads
connecting the towns and available transportation facilities that
commute daily between them. On the other hand, petitioners have their haciendas
near the places of hearing and the action of the court cannot work
inconvenience to them considering their facilities and resources.

We find, therefore, no plausible reason to disturb the action taken by the industrial court on the matter.

Petition is denied, with costs against petitioners. The writ of preliminary injunction issued is hereby dissolved.

Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.