ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE JUDGE, JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ, ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for certiorari .and prohibition with preliminary
injunction seeking to enjoin respondent judge from further proceeding with the
case filed before him and to nullify the preliminary injunction he issued for
want of jurisdiction.

It appears that respondent Sweet Lines is a general co-partnership engaged in
coast-wise shipping and doing business in the Philippines under the firm name
Limpo & Sons. On April 15, 1957, it entered into a contract with the Besanez
& Canete Arrastre Service whereby it was agreed that the loading and
unloading of the cargoes of respondent’s vessels at the port of Cebu will be
handled by said arrastre Company. On January 14, 1960, the Besanez & Canete
Arrastre Service in turn entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the
United Free Workers Union wherein it recognized the said union as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the workers in the arrastre service.

On January 27, 1960, the Associated Labor Union, which is also a legitimate
labor organization composed of dock workers formerly affiliated with the United
Free Workers Union and employed in the loading and unloading of the cargoes of
the Sweet Lines, wrote a letter to said firm and the Besanez & Canete
Arrastre Service requesting them to enter into a collective bargaining contract
with it because it represents the majority of the regular and permanent workers
in the arrastre job. But instead of acceding to the request, the Besanez &
Canete Arrastre Service, thru its capataz and/or foreman, allegedly coerced the
members of petitioning union to join the United Free Workers Union with the
result that those who refused were not allowed to work. , Such act impelled the
petitioner to send letters of protest to respondent Sweet Lines and the arrastre
company furnishing copies thereof to the Conciliation Service of the Department
of Labor. As a consequence, a conference was held among the parties thru the
initiative of the Conciliation Service in an effort to settle their differences,
but as no concrete agreement was reached the solution of the matter was held in
abeyance until further notice.

Since then the relation of the parties became so strained that the members of
petitioning union numbering approximately 135 struck on February 22, 1960 filing
at the same time a charge of unfair labor practice with the Court of Industrial
Relations against the Sweet Lines and the Besanez & Caiiete Arrastre
Service. Because of the picketing put up by the members of the union against the
Sweet Lines a conference was again called by the Conciliation Service in an
attempt to settle the conflict, but on February 23, 1960, the shipping firm
filed the present complaint before the Court of First Instance of Cebu praying
(1) to declare the picketing illegal and unlawful; (2) to order defendant
(petitioner herein) to pay plaintiff (respondent herein) the amount of
P55,000.00 as damages and attorney’s fees; and (3) to issue, without notice, a
writ of preliminary injunction prohibiting the union from picketing plaintiffs
offices and vessels (Case No. 126492). Upon posting by plaintiff of a bond in
the amount of ?2,000.00, respondent judge, on February 23, 1960, granted the
writ prayed for.

The following day the union filed an urgent motion to lift the writ of
preliminary injunction. Plaintiff filed its opposition thereto, but before the
trial court could act thereon, the union filed the present petition for
certiorari.

The only issue posed by petitioner is whether or not respondent judge has
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case and, in the affirmative, whether he
acted properly in issuing against it, ex parte, the writ of preliminary
injunction prayed for.

Petitioner contends that the present case falls within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations because of the unfair labor
practice charge filed with said court prior to the institution of this case
before respondent court; that as this case stems from a labor dispute ‘ the law
that should govern is Republic Act 875; and that peaceful picketing cannot be
enjoined it being part of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution.
Respondent, on the other hand, avers that there being no employer-employee
relationship, or labor dispute, between the parties, the case is cognizable by
the regular courts and the procedure that should be observed in the issuance of
the writ of preliminary injunction is the one prescribed by our Rules of Court
and not by Republic Act No. 875.

While it may be admitted that there is no contractual relation between
petitioner and respondent regarding the loading and unloading of cargoes coming
from the latter’s vessels because the arrastre contract was entered into between
respondent and the Besanez & Canete Arrastre Service, we cannot subscribe to
the view that there is no labor relation existing between them for it cannot be
denied that the members of petitioning union are actually working for the
benefit of the shipping firm by loading and unloading the cargoes coming from
its vessels. In fact, the picketing undertaken by the members of said union had
so affected the interest of that firm that to avoid damages to its property it
instituted the present action. As this Court has aptly said, “a labor dispute
exists ‘regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of
employer and employee”, for to constitute a labor dispute only an indirect
interest is necessary in order to include a party within its meaning.
(Associated Watchmen and Security Union [PTWO], et al. vs. United
States Lines, et al., 101 Phil., 896; 54 Off. Gaz. [31] 7397; See also Houston
and North Texas Motor Freight Lines vs. Local Union No. 886 of
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablement and Helpers of
America, D.C. Okl. 1938, 24 F. Supp. 619; 29 USCA p. 86.)

We believe, however, that this case does not fall with in the jurisdiction of
the regular courts it appearing that there is already pending between the same
parties before the Court of Industrial Relations a case involving an unfair
labor practice when the shipping firm initiated the present case before the
Court of First Instance of Cebu.^[1] And
even if we admit, as the record seemingly shows, that when the shipping firm
started this case the special prosecutor of the industrial court eliminated said
firm from the formal charge of unfair labor practice and only included the
arrastre company, still it may be said that the trial court issued illegally the
preliminary injunction against the members of the striking union it appearing
that in acting on the matter the court did not follow the procedure laid down by
Republic Act 875 but instead it applied what is provided for in our Rules of
Court. In other words, in a case which involves a labor dispute, as in the
present, the court before acting on a motion for preliminary injunction shall
set the same for hearing, giving notice to the parties, with an opportunity to
cross-examine the witnesses, and must make a statement that the other conditions
required by law as prerequisites for the granting of relief have been complied
with. [Section 9 (d), Republic Act 875; Philippine Association of Free Labor
Unions (PAFLU), et al.vs. Tan, et al., 99 Phil, 854; Reyes, et al.
vs. Tan, et al., 99 Phil., 880; 52 Off. Gaz., No. 14, 6187; Allied Free
Workers’ Union, et al., vs. Apostol, et al. 102 Phil., 292. That this
procedure has not been followed may be seen from the order of the trial court
which we quote hereunder for reference:

“A verified complaint has been filed today by plaintiff, praying among other
things, for a writ of preliminary injunction restraining or enjoining the
defendant from committing or causing to be committed all acts of picketing
plaintiff’s office, vessels and premises, until such time that the legality of
such pickets is finally determined by this court. Finding the complaint in order
and in accordance with the Rules of Court, let a writ of preliminary injunction
be issued against the defendant, its members, subordinates, representatives,
agents and employees restraining them from performing the acts described above
previous to the filing, by the plaintiff, of a bond in the amount of Two
thousand fesos (P2,000.00).”

Wherefore, petition is granted. The writ of preliminary injunction issued by
respondent judge is set aside. The writ of injunction issued by this Court is
declared permanent. No costs.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera,
Gutierrez David, and Paredes, JJ., concur.

Petition granted.

---

^[1] Philippine Association of Free
Labor Unions (PAFLU), et al. vs. Tan, et ah, 99 Phil., 854; 52 Off.
Gaz. (13) 5836; National Garments & Textiles Workers’ Union vs.
Caluag, L-9104 Sept. 10, 1956; Benguet Consolidated Mining Co. vs. Coto
Labor Union, 105 Phil., 915.