JUAN ESPANILLA, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, VS. LA CARLOTA SUGAR CENTRAL AND THE NATIONAL SUGAR WORKERS UNION (NASWU-PAFLU), DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

On April 20, 1964,
Juan Espanilla and others filed with the Court of
First Instance of Negros Occidental a pleading
entitled Petition for Declaratory Relief with Preliminary Injunction against La
Carlota Sugar Central – hereinafter referred to as the Central – and the
National Sugar Workers Union (NASWU-PAFLU) – hereinafter referred to as the Union.

The Central filed its answer alleging, inter alia,
that it had no desire to participate in the dispute between the plaintiffs and
its co-defendant Union, and that it was constrained to send the letters
mentioned in the complaint because it was threatened with a strike by the Union
in case it did not accede to its demand for the dismissal of the plaintiffs
upon their failure to re-affiliate with the Union.

On April 23, 1965,
the Union filed a motion to dis­miss the case claiming
that the court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter thereof because it
involved an impending labor strike and it was related to a case for unfair
labor practice then pending in the Court of Indus­trial Relations as Case No.
3910-ULP.  Both parties admit, however,
that this case has already been dismissed because of non-appearance of the
therein complainants at the sched­uled hearing.

After a hearing on the motion to dismiss, the trial court, on August 1, 1964, issued an order
dismissing the case upon the ground that it had no jurisdiction over its
subject matter.  Hence, the present
appeal in which appel­lants pray for a reversal of said order and for the
remand­ing of the case to the lower court for further proceedings, upon the
following grounds:

“FIRST ERROR

The Lower Court
Erred In Holding That Jurisdiction In The Present Case Should Be With The Court
Of Industrial Relations.

SECOND ERROR

The Lower Court
Erred In Holding That Case No. 3910-ULP, CIR, Is Between The Parties.

THIRD ERROR

The Lower Court
Erred In Dismissing This Case.”

The pleadings of the parties reproduced in the Record on Appeal
clearly show that appellants’ action can not be one for declaratory relief, its
purpose being firstly, to secure judgment declaring “as illegal, immoral,
and null and void,” Sec. 1 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (Annex A
attached to the complaint) entered into by and between the defendants La
Carlota Sugar Central and Na­tional Sugar Workers Union (NASWU-PAFLU) and
secondly, to enjoin the enforcement of its provisions against the plain­tiffs.

However, delving deeper into the nature and purpose of
appellants’ action, We can not but reach the
conclusion that it was intended primarily to prevent their dismissal or, at
least to prevent the defendants-appellees from com­pelling
them to withdraw their resignation from the appel­lant Union.  It seems clear from this that the action was,
in effect, intended to prevent the commission of an act which would constitute
an unfair labor practice.  In this
connection, We have recently held in Lakas Ng Manggagawang Makabayan (LMM) vs.
Hon. Carlos Abiera, et al. (G.R. L-29474, December
19, 1970) that under Sec. 5 (a) of the Industrial Peace Act the Court of
Industrial Relations has jurisdic­tion over the prevention of unfair
labor practices; that it is empowered to prevent any person from
engaging in any un­fair labor practice, and that said court and not a Court of
First Instance is the one vested with jurisdiction over any kind of unfair
labor practice.  We, therefore, agree
with the trial court that it had no jurisdiction over appel­lants’ action.

WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal appealed from is
affirmed but without prejudice to appellants’ right to seek relief from the
Court of Industrial Relations.  Without costs.

Concecpion, C.J., Reyes, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Ruiz Castro,
Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Villamor, and
Makasiar, JJ., concur.