RURAL TRANSIT EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION, PETITIONER, VS. BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC., BACHRACH TRANSPORTATION COMPANY AND COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, RESPONDENTS.

Petitioner, Rural Transit Employees’
Association – hereinafter referred to as the Union – seeks the review by
certiorari of an order of the Court of
Industrial Relations, dismissing the present case, without prejudice.

Said Union is composed of employees of the Bachrach
Motor Co., Inc., which was, subsequently, reorganized
as Bachrach Transportation Company – hereinafter
referred to as the Company – and is engaged in the transportation of passengers
and freight by land in the Philippines. 
It appears that in May, 1958, the members of the Union
declared a strike against the Company, in consequence of a labor dispute which
was later certified by the President to the Court of Relations as one involving
the national interest.

The background of said dispute was this:  The Company used to accept freight, either
accompanied or unaccompanied by the owners, shippers or agents thereof.  The Union contended that this practice
brought about undue inconvenience to the riding public, because it cramped the
space available to the latter and caused unnecessary delays, owing to the fact
that the buses had to go to barrios and remote places to look for the
consignees of said unaccompanied freight; because the buses did not have separate compartments for
freight, whether accompanied or not, so that the passengers, fearing that their
baggage may get lost, insisted on placing them near their seats, subject to
their surveillance; and because the absence of such compartments gave occasion
for the loss, damage, misdelivery or nondelivery of the freight,
for which the employees of the Company were penalized by the latter.

The Union had, accordingly, presented for compulsory arbitration,
inter alia, two interrelated demands,
which were segregated from the main dispute and designated as Case No. 22-IPA
(19) of the Court of Industrial Relations, namely:  (a) that separate freight trucks be
commissioned to haul exclusively freight unaccompanied by the owners, shippers
or agents thereof; and (b) that the penalties formerly imposed upon and collected
from the drivers and conductors
of the buses on which they were loaded, on account of the loss, damage, misdelivery or nondelivery of said freight, be declared unjustified as
well as harsh, and ordered refunded to the employees con­cerned.

To bolster up these demands, the Union
averred that the practice of accepting freight unaccompanied by the shipper was
illegal and violative of the Company’s certificate of
public convenience, “especially when it disregarded the convenience,
comfort and safety of the riding public.” In support of this averment, the
Union had presented a letter of the Acting Chief of the
Complaint, Investigation and Enforce­ment Office of the Public Service
Commission, expressing said view.

In its answer, the Company contended that, under the provisions
of its certificate of public convenience, its buses could transport, not only
passengers, but, also, freight, either accompanied or unaccompanied by the
shipper, and that the penalties complained of were imposed only in “clear cases of negligence” of the
employees concerned, when freight was lost, damaged, misdelivered
or undelivered.

Passing upon the issue thus raised, the Court of Industrial Relations issued an order, dated May 14,
1963, dismissing the petition without prejudice, upon the theory that the question
whether or not the acceptance of accompanied and unaccompanied freight, under
the conditions already adverted to, violated the Company’s certificate of
public convenience, was within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission.  Hence, the present petition for review by
certiorari.

We do not share the conclusion reached by the Court of Industrial Relations.

Although the Union contended that the acceptance of said freight
in passenger buses, without any suitable compartment therefor,
constituted a violation of the Company’s certificate of public convenience,
this was merely one of the grounds of the demand by the Union for a
refund of the penalties imposed upon the employees concerned and collected by
the Company for the loss, damage, misdelivery or nondelivery of said freight, as one of the causes of
the labor dispute and the strike certified by the President to the Court of
Industrial Relations.  It was, not only
within the competence, but, also, the duty of the Court of Industrial Relations to settle the
issue raised by said demand, which led to the aforementioned strike,
considering particularly that the labor dispute between the parties herein had
been certified by the President as one involving or affecting the national
interest.

Although it appears that the Company had subsequently secured a
certificate of public convenience to operate trucks for the transportation
exclusively of cargoes unaccompanied by the shippers thereof, the issue in the
present case has not thereby become academic, in view of the fact that the
demand of the Union for a refund of the
penalties imposed and collected by the Company for the loss, damage, misdelivery or nondelivery of
freight, has not been settled in consequence of the issuance of said
certificate of public convenience. 
Moreover, even if the acceptance
of freight, under the aforementioned circumstances, did not violate the
rules of the Public Service Commission,
there would still be the issue whether the Company was justified in punishing
its employees as it did and should
make the corresponding refund.

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is hereby set aside and
the case remanded to the Court of Industrial Relations for further proceedings, with the costs of this
instance against the Company.

SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.