MARCELO STEEL CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. MARCELO STEEL WORKERS UNION AND NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION RESPONDENTS.

Marcelo Steel versus Marcelo Steel Workers Union

The Case

This is a petition filed with the Supreme Court by Marcelo Steel Corporation against the Marcelo Steel Workers Union and the National Labor Relations Commission, challenging a labor ruling that granted wage increases to covered employees and the orders that affirmed and enforced it. The case matters less for any labor-law doctrine than for what it teaches about the life of a case: the parties themselves settled their dispute while the petition was pending, and the Court was asked to give effect to that settlement rather than decide the merits. It is a study in mootness by agreement and in the primacy of the parties' will over continued litigation.

Procedural History

The dispute began before a labor arbiter, who issued an order granting the complainant's motion for a writ of execution. That ruling was elevated to the National Labor Relations Commission, which rendered a decision granting all covered employees certain wage increases. Deputy Minister Amado Inciong then issued an order affirming the Commission's decision. From these rulings, Marcelo Steel Corporation filed a petition with the Supreme Court, assailing the Commission's decision, the Deputy Minister's affirming order, and the Commission's resolution affirming the labor arbiter's order granting execution. The respondents submitted their comments on the petition. Before the Court could resolve the merits, the petitioner and the union jointly moved to withdraw the petition, and the Court acted on that motion.

Facts

Marcelo Steel Corporation was ordered, through the labor arbiter and then the National Labor Relations Commission, to grant wage increases to its covered employees, and the Deputy Minister of Labor affirmed that ruling. The company brought the matter to the Supreme Court by petition, seeking to set aside the Commission's decision, the Deputy Minister's order, and the resolution allowing execution.

While the petition was pending, the company and the Marcelo Steel Workers Union entered into a joint agreement dated June 23, 1981, filed with the National Labor Relations Commission. Under that agreement, the parties bound themselves to abide by its terms and conditions and to faithfully comply with any order the Commission might issue as a result of it. The agreement was ratified, accepted, and approved by the individual members of the bargaining unit, as shown by the union board resolutions and the individual ratification slips of the members.

On September 8, 1981, the petitioner and the union filed a joint motion to withdraw the petition, stating that the parties had agreed to abide by their joint agreement and asking that the petition and all incidents thereto be withdrawn from the records and dismissed for being moot and academic.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition should be withdrawn from the records and dismissed as moot and academic in view of the joint agreement and the joint motion of the parties.
• Whether or not the parties' settlement, ratified by the members of the bargaining unit, renders further adjudication of the labor dispute unnecessary.

Applicable Provisions

No statutory provision is quoted or construed in the decision. The governing text is the parties' own joint motion to withdraw, which states the ground for dismissal:

NOW COME, the Petitioner and Private Respondents thru their respective counsels of record, upon previous authority of their respective clients, most respectfully request the Honorable Tribunal to withdraw from the records the herein Petition for Review considering that parties hereof have agreed to abide with the terms and conditions of their joint agreement dated June 23, 1981 filed with the Public Respondent, National Labor Relations Commission, and any such order of the latter, as a result thereof will be faithfully complied by the parties.

This is the operative pleading that moved the Court to dismiss the case as moot and academic.

The motion likewise invokes the ratification of the settlement by the members of the bargaining unit:

That the aforementioned Joint Agreement of June 23, 1981 had been duly ratified, accepted and approved by the individual members of the bargaining unit as evidenced by copies hereof of the Union Board resolutions and the individual ratification slips of the members of the Unit.

This establishes that the settlement carried the consent of the very employees whose wage increases were at stake.

And the prayer fixes the relief sought:

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed that this Petition and all incidents thereto be withdrawn from the records and or dismissed for being moot and academic.

That prayer is precisely what the Court granted.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court granted the joint motion and dismissed the petition, considering the case closed. The Court did not reach the merits of the wage-increase rulings, because the parties had themselves agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of their joint agreement of June 23, 1981 and to faithfully comply with any order of the National Labor Relations Commission issued as a result of it. With the controversy thus settled by the parties, the petition had become moot and academic, and there was nothing left for the Court to adjudicate.

On the second issue, the Court's disposition rests on the fact that the settlement was not a mere private arrangement between the company and the union officers. The joint motion recited that the agreement had been duly ratified, accepted, and approved by the individual members of the bargaining unit, as evidenced by the union board resolutions and the individual ratification slips. That ratification gave the settlement the consent of the employees themselves, and it was on that footing that the Court allowed the withdrawal and closed the case. The Court ordered no costs.

Doctrine

A petition becomes moot and academic when the parties, by their own agreement, have settled the very controversy the petition asks the Court to resolve, and the Court will dismiss the petition rather than render an advisory ruling on the merits. The dismissal rests on the parties' joint motion to withdraw, in which they bound themselves to abide by their joint agreement and to faithfully comply with any order of the labor tribunal issued as a result of it. Where the settlement has been duly ratified, accepted, and approved by the individual members of the bargaining unit, as evidenced by union board resolutions and individual ratification slips, the agreement carries the consent of the employees themselves and is a proper basis for terminating the litigation. The rule for the Bar candidate is simple: a case settled by the parties during its pendency is dismissed as moot and academic, and the Court will not proceed to decide questions that no longer present a live controversy.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed and the case considered closed, without costs, in accordance with the parties' joint motion to withdraw.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: a petition settled by the parties through a ratified joint agreement becomes moot and academic, and the Court will dismiss it rather than rule on the merits. Examiners use this case to test mootness by settlement and the effect of a compromise agreement ratified by the members of a bargaining unit in a labor dispute pending before the Supreme Court.