G.R. No. L-26383. April 03, 1968
PROGRESSIVE LABOR ASSOCIATION, BERNARDO O. CALANG, DOMINADOR RUIZ AND DELFIN N. MERCADER, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. JUDGE GUILLERMO VILLASOR, CEBU CARTAGE CORPORATION, ATLAS CONSOL…
BENGZON, J.P., J.:
Petitioner Progressive Labor Association, in behalf of its nearly
4,000 members employed at the respondent Atlas Consolidated Mining &
Development Corporation (“ATLAS” for short) presented to the latter
on March 31, 1966, a 19-point demand “for the well being and better terms
of employment of the workers x x x.”
On account, allegedly, of unfair labor practices committed by ATLAS
subsequently, a complaint therefor was instituted in
the Court of Industrial Relations against the latter for (a) refusal to continue
negotiations with petitioner union in connection with its demands; (b) inducing
the union directors to oust Atty. Delfin Mercader as its counsel,
and (c) refusal to turn over to petitioner the amount of P5.00 checked-off from
the respective salaries of union members.
On June 15, 1966,
a notice of strike against ATLAS was filed by petitioner union by reason, it is
claimed, of the continuing unfair labor practices committed by ATLAS. This was followed by the staging of a strike
and picketing, on July 11, 1966,
around the premises of ATLAS in Toledo
City, Cebu province.
However, on July 15, 1966, a complaint for injunction and damages
was filed in the Court of First Instance of Cebu[1]
against petitioner and its officials – co-petitioners herein – by co-respondent
Cebu Cartage Corporation, which had a hauling
contract with ATLAS and which sought to enjoin the picketing strikers from
preventing its trucks and personnel to enter and leave the ATLAS premises. The next day, July 16, 1966, the lower court issued an ex-parte preliminary injunction directed against petitioner and
its striking members.
On July 22, 1966,
petitioners moved to dissolve the preliminary injunction and to dismiss the
civil case on the ground that there was a labor dispute connected with unfair
labor practices. The lower court denied
both motions. A reconsideration was
sought but it failed.
Alleging the foregoing facts, petitioners filed the present
special civil action of certiorari with preliminary injunction asking this
Court to: (a) dissolve the preliminary injunction issued by the lower court; (b)
dismiss Civil Case R-9460; and (c) enjoin in the meantime, the lower court from
taking any action in Civil Case R-9460 until further orders and also enjoin the
other respondents Mayor and the Police Chief of Toledo City, the Philippine
Constabulary Commanders, and their respective men from:
(1) harassing, manhandling and threatening with arrests the picketing union members;
(2) escorting the trucks and workers of Cebu
Cartage inside the ATLAS premises by breaking thru the picket lines;
(3) recruiting strike breakers and scabs;
(4) breaking the picket line and dispersing the picketers, and
(5) interfering or in any other way obstructing the picketing and
concerted action of the strikers.
The petition was given due course and preliminary injunction was
issued by Us ‘as prayed for against the lower court and the other
co-respondents.
On September 1, 1966, Cebu Cartage
filed its answer to the petition claiming that it was not at all involved,
directly or indirectly, in the labor dispute between ATLAS and petitioner union
and that it secured the preliminary injunction only in order to fulfill its
hauling contract with ATLAS since the union picketers blocked the entrance and
exits to the said company’s premises.
The answer also contained an urgent, ex-parte
motion for the dissolution or clarification and modification of the Supreme
Court injunction on the ground that the dispute had already ended with the
execution on August 27, 1966,
of a return-to-work agreement by the newly elected officers of the union.
On September 7, 1966,
petitioners sought to declare Private respondents in contempt for having
disobeyed the Supreme Court injunction.
This Court, by resolution of September
12, 1966, directed (a) petitioner union to answer respondent Cebu Cartage’s motion and (b) the private respondents to
answer the former’s petition to have them declared in
contempt of court.
Then came the answers to the petition of the other private
respondents. ATLAS claimed that the union already had a new set of officers and
that they had executed a return-to-work agreement; that the picketing was not
peaceful, and that the strike was economic, not due to unfair labor
practices. The remaining respondents
Mayor and the Police Chief of Toledo City and the Philippine Constabulary officers
joined in asserting that the picketing was not peaceful.
On October 17, 1966,
petitioners filed their answer to Cebu Cartage’s
motion to dissolve or modify and clarify the Supreme Court injunction. The so-alleged election of new union
officials, it insisted, was not valid and was merely a scheme of ATLAS. Petitioners also denied having authorized the
use of violence in the conduct of the picketing, which generally, was
peaceful.
The hearing of the case was set for November 21, 1966.
The parties, however, asked and were allowed to file written memoranda.
Subsequently, or on June
13, 1967 to be exact, petitioners filed a “MOTION FOR THE
TERMINATION OF THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND FOR THE CANCELLATION OF THE
BOND.” In support thereof, it was asserted:[2]
“1. That the strike and
picketing staged by the petitioners against the Respondent Atlas
Consolidated Mining & Development Corporation formally ceased and ended
on October 4, 1966 when the striking petitioners formally offered to
return to work, stop their strike and lifted their pickets taking away all
their placards and picket lines. x x x
“2. That the writ of
preliminary injunction issued in this case on August 11, 1966[3]
by this Honorable Supreme Court was for the purpose of enjoining the respondents
from interfering, manhandling or in any way interfering with said strike and
picketing, such that upon the termination and complete cessation of said
strike and picketing (as they did since October 4, 1966 the purpose and
reason for the existence of said preliminary injunction have also terminated
and ceased.” (Stressed for emphasis)
Required to comment, respondents all manifested no objection to
the foregoing motion. On August 18, 1967, We accordingly
granted petitioners’ motion asking for the lifting of this Court’s injunction
issued on August 23, 1966.
This development has perforce rendered the present case
moot. The petitioners here mainly
assail, the exparte preliminary injunction issued by
the lower court on the principal ground that it was issued in a labor dispute
without following the procedural requirements of Republic Act 875. Said injunction, however, has already lost
its purpose and effectivity for what it seeks to
restrain, i.e., the strike, picketing and all the concomitant acts thereof, are
no longer existent as admitted by the very parties against which said
injunction is directed and which sought this remedy against it. We see no necessity in further declaring
void and ineffective what, of itself, is already ineffective.
The main case is also assailed for lack of cause of action. This is no jurisdictional defect. And no doubt the lower court has jurisdiction
over the main case insofar as the complaint seeks for damages.[4]
While there is also an allegation in the petition that the labor dispute is
connected with unfair labor practices, such allegation, without supporting
proof, is insufficient to show that the Court of First Instance has no
jurisdiction.[5]
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby dismissed. Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Reyes, J.B.L., (Acting C.J.), Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz
Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.
[1] Cebu Cartage Corp. v. Calang,
et al., Civil Case No. R 9460.
[2] Rollo, p. 227.
[3]
Should be August 23, 1966,
when the writ was issued after petitioners posted the required bond.
[4]
Erlanger & Galinger v. Erlanger & Galinger Employees Ass’n., 104
Phil. 17; Cueto v. Hon. Ortiz, L-11555.
[5]
PAFLU v. Hon. Marcos, L-26213, March
27, 1968.