DELFIN CUETO, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. HON. MONTANO A. ORTIZ, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

On November 13, 1956, the Nasipit Labor Union and the Nasipit
Stevedoring Co., Inc., filed in the Court of First Instance of Agusan
Civil Case No. 517 for the recovery of damages, with prayer for the
issuance ex parte of a writ of preliminary injunction against
herein petitioners. The complaint alleges, among other things, that
plaintiff Nasipit Stevedoring Co., Inc., by virtue of agreements with
the Nasipit Lumber Co., Inc., and the Agusan Timber Corporation, is the
sole and exclusive contractor for the unloading and loading of all
cargoes of said lumber companies on all foreign vessels calling at the
port of Nasipit; that to furnish the stevedoring work, plaintiff
Nasipit Stevedoring Co., Inc., entered into agreement and hired the
services of its co-plaintiff, the Nasipit Labor Union; that said union
has been doing the stevedoring work to the satisfaction of the lumber
companies; that on November 6, 1956, the defendants (herein petitioner)
without any legal right whatsoever, prevented the plaintiff Nasipit
Labor Union by means of threat, force, intimidation and coercion from
loading the timber of the abovementioned lumber companies on
ocean-going vessels, which were docked at the port of Nasipit, province
of Agusan; that despite the presence of peace officers, the defendants
succeeded in harassing plaintiffs’ laborers and even went to the extent
of causing physical injuries to a security guard of plaintiff Nasipit
Labor Union; that due to the acts of said defendants, plaintiffs
suffered actual and pecuniary damages, and stand to suffer great and
irreparable injuries unless defendants are restrained from committing
further acts of violence.

The defendants, herein petitioners, opposed the petition for the issuance of an ex-parte
writ of preliminary injunction. Following the procedure laid down in
Section 9(d) of Republic Act No. 875, the lower court set the said
petition for preliminary injunction for hearing. Thereafter, the court,
finding that sufficient reasons existed for the issuance of the writ
prayed for, issued the same upon petitioners’ putting up a bond of
P20,000.

Objecting to the issuance of the writ of
preliminary injunction, defendants filed the present petition for
certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction to enjoin the
enforcement of the order and writ issued by the respondent court. They
allege that the bond is formally and substantially defective because it
does not “signify an agreement entered into by the complainant and the
surety;” that the total value of the property of the two sureties
amounts only to P3,460, while the undertaking entered into by them
“jointly and severally” was for the sum of P20,000; and that the order
and writ of preliminary injunction varies greatly from the prayer of
the complaint and is not in accordance with the provisions of section 9
of Republic Act No. 875.

Upon the petitioners’ filing a bond
of P200, a writ of preliminary injunction was issued by this Court, but
after respondents had filed their answer and the case heard, the writ
was subsequently dissolved.

The question of whether or not a
court of first instance can take cognizance of a case which involves a
labor dispute, or can issue a writ of injunction as an incident
thereto, has been decided by this Court in the case of Philippine
Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) et al. vs. Hon.
Bienvenido Tan et al. (99 Phil., 854; 52 Off. Gaz., 5836). In that
case, although the issue between the parties admittedly arose out of a
labor dispute, this Court held that courts of first instance have
jurisdiction to settle said issue and determine whether a writ of
preliminary or permanent injunction should be issued, inasmuch as said
labor dispute does not affect an industry which is indispensable to the
national interest and is so certified by the president, and the
controversy neither refers to minimum wage, under the Minimum Wage Law,
or to hours of employment, under the Eight-Hour Labor Law, nor involves
an unfair labor practice. The rule, therefore, is that with the
exception of the cases above specified, the Court of Industrial
Relations has no jurisdiction even if the case involves a labor dispute.

In the instant case, there can hardly be any dispute that the court
below has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint filed by
herein respondents Nasipit Labor Union and Nasipit Stevedoring Co.,
Inc. As a matter of fact, the petitioners, although stating that the
case matte out by the said complaint involves a labor dispute, do not
even claim that it falls under any of the specified cases adverted to
above. Actually, it merely refers to the recovery of damages occasioned
by the acts of interference and violence perpetrated by the members of
the petitioner Young Men Labor Union Stevedore. Such being the case, we
hold that the lower court had the authority to issue the writ of
preliminary injunction complained of, which is but an incident thereto.
(See Allied Free Workers’ Union et al. vs. Apostol,
102 Phil., 292.) And it being. expressly stated in the order sought to
be annulled that the procedure laid down by Section 9 (d) of Republic Act No. 875 has been followed, we see no valid reason for annulling the same.

With respect to the alleged defect in the bond put up by the
respondents labor union and stevedoring company, suffice it to say that
the same does not affect the lower court’s jurisdiction over the case.
And we also note that the alleged defect as well as the other errors or
irregularities alleged to have been committed by the court in issuing
the order complained of have not been brought to its attention through
a motion for reconsideration, a requisite which is necessary in
petitions in the nature of the present.

In view of the foregoing, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is denied, with costs against petitioners.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, and Labrador, JJ., concur.

Concepcion and Barrera, JJ., concur in the result.

Reyes, J.B.L, and Endencia, JJ., did not take part.