DOMINADOR BASAYA, JR., FLORENCIO ABELLA, DOMINADOR ORDINEZA, FLORO ROSALEJOS, PABLO PADILLA, ELVIN ELISORIO, PATRICIO GUTIB, JOSE LEOPOLDO, HONORATO SININA, EFREMIO CATUBAY, RAU…

In this Petition for Review on Certiorari, petitioners
challenge the assumption of jurisdiction by Respondent Judge of the Regional
Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch XII, over a
complaint for Replevin filed by private respondent,
Philippine Tuna Ventures, Inc. against petitioners, upon the allegation that it
is intertwined with a labor dispute so that exclusive jurisdiction belongs to
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

Respondent Philippine Tuna Ventures, Inc. (TUNA, Inc., for
short,) is the charterer of the fishing vessel, the
F/B Caribbean (hereinafter referred to simply as the Vessel).  TUNA, Inc. has been operating this Vessel in
its deep-sea fishing business since 1977 together with eight (8) other fishing
boats.  Sometime in 1985, TUNA, Inc.
transferred the operation of the Vessel to a sister corporation, the Eastship Fishing Corporation (Eastship,
for brevity).  Petitioners, twenty-four
(24) in all, constitute the crew of the Vessel, with petitioner Dominador Basaya, Jr., as its
Captain.

On 9 July 1986, TUNA, Inc. sought the remedy of Replevin (the Replevin Case)
against petitioners before the Regional Trial Court presided over by Respondent
Judge, praying that petitioners (defendants in that case) be ordered to deliver
to it the possession of its Vessel, which petitioners were allegedly possessing
in violation of its rights.

In their defense below petitioners maintained that they were in
possession of the Vessel as its crew; that their possession is “an
extension of the possession of the plaintiff over the Vessel” and that to
deprive them of its possession by a Writ of Replevin
would amount to an illegal termination of their employment.

On 10 July
1986, the Writ of Replevin was ordered issued upon TUNA, Inc.’s filing of a
bond in the amount of P2M.  The Sheriff
served the Writ on petitioners on 12 July 1986 and they disembarked from the Vessel in the
evening of that day.  However, after
about an hour, they re-embarked and re-took possession.

On 29 August 1986
judgment was rendered in the Replevin Case declaring
TUNA, Inc. to have a better right to the possession of the Vessel and ordering
petitioners to immediately deliver possession thereof.

On 15
September 1986
petitioners resorted to this appeal by certiorari on a question of law
with a prayer for a restraining order.

On 17 September 1986
we issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining respondents from enforcing
the judgment in the Replevin Case or any Writ of
Execution issued therein.

The only issue for resolution is whether or not the Trial Court
had jurisdiction to hear and decide the Replevin Case.

Said Court upheld its jurisdiction and ruled, as heretofore stated, that the charterer, TUNA,
Inc., has a better right to the possession of the Vessel and ordered
petitioners to immediately deliver possession.

In this Petition,
petitioners argue that the Trial Court erred in:

“I.   x x x  assuming a split
jurisdiction over the civil rights of the respondent corporation to possess the
vessel F/B Caribbean and oust the petitioners-appellants separately from the
labor rights of the petitioners-appellants to be protected from their sudden
arbitrary ouster from their positions in the said vessel as crew members and
officers thereof.

“II.  x x x holding that the legal responsibility of the respondent,
Philippine Tuna Ventures, Inc. as the employer of the petitioners-appellants
has been transferred to Eastship Fishing Corporation.

“III.  x x x assuming jurisdiction over this case which involves the
labor violation of unfair labor practice committed by the respondent Phil. Tuna
Ventures, Inc. and which, therefore,
appertains to the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations
Commission.

It appears that on 26 June 1986, petitioners had presented to the
management of TUNA, Inc., a set of labor demands; that on 28 June 1986 they had
informed Eastship that they would not move the Vessel
to any destination until their demands were met; that on 2 July 1986 TUNA,
Inc., had applied for a “shut-down” or closure allegedly due to
business losses; that on 8 July 1986 Eastship filed
with the National Labor Relations Commission, Regional Office No. 7, Cebu City, a Petition to declare petitioners’ strike
illegal; and that on 8 August 1986, petitioners instituted a Complaint for
Unfair Labor Practice against TUNA, Inc. and Eastship.  Incidentally, petitioners allege that they
are not on strike.

Developments subsequent to the judgment in the Replevin Case also disclose that on 18 November 1986, in
NLRC Injunction Case No. 1270 entitled Eastship
Fishing Corporation vs. Concerned Seamen of the Philippines, the NLRC issued an
Injunction Writ enjoining petitioners from blocking the free ingress and egress
to the Vessel and seven (7) other fishing boats and to disembark from and
vacate the Vessel without prejudice to the exercise of their right to lawful
and peaceful picketing; that on 28 November 1986, the NLRC Sheriffs attempted
to enforce the Injunction but petitioners refused to comply thereby compelling
the NLRC on the same date to seek the assistance of the Philippine Constabulary
and the Philippine Coast Guard; that it was only on 11 December 1986, after a
series of refusals, that petitioners left the Vessel peacefully only to retake
possession on 16 December 1986.

An ocular inspection on 10
January 1987 by Eastship disclosed that
petitioners were still in possession.

Upon the facts and issue
involved, we uphold the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

Replevin is a possessory
action, the gist of which is the right of possession in the plaintiff.  The primary relief sought therein is the
return of the property in specie wrongfully detained by another person.  It is an ordinary statutory proceeding to
adjudicate rights to the title or possession of personal property (Francisco,
The Revised Rules of Court, Provisional Remedies, 1985, p. 386, citing 46 Am. Jur. 7).  The
question of whether or not a party has the right of possession over the
property involved and if so, whether or not the adverse party has wrongfully
taken and detained said property as to require its return to plaintiff, is
outside the pale of competence of a labor tribunal; it is beyond the field of
specialization of Labor Arbiters.

The Trial Court,
therefore, rightfully assumed jurisdiction over the Replevin
Case and aptly held that, as charterer of the Vessel,
TUNA, Inc. has the better right of possession and that petitioners’ alleged
right to possess the Vessel as the crew thereof is not in any way superior to
the right of TUNA, Inc. as such charterer or lessee.

The labor dispute
involved is not intertwined with the issue in the Replevin
Case.  The respective issues raised in
each forum can be resolved independently of the other.  In fact, on 18 November 1986, the NLRC in the case before it had issued
an Injunctive Writ enjoining petitioners from blocking the free ingress and
egress to the Vessel and ordering petitioners to disembark and vacate.  That aspect of the controversy is properly
settled under the Labor Code.  So also with petitioners’
right to picket.  But the
determination of the question of who has the better right to take possession of
the Vessel and whether petitioners can deprive the Charterer,
as the legal possessor of the Vessel, of that right to possess is addressed to
the competence of Civil Courts.

In thus ruling, this Court is not sanctioning split jurisdiction
but defining avenues of jurisdiction as laid down by
pertinent laws.

The Court takes note that petitioners have defied not only the
Writ of Replevin issued by the Civil
Court but also the Injunction ordered by the
NLRC.  Petitioners must be reminded that
rights are not their exclusive prerogative but are enjoyed by others as
well.  They must yield to the rule of law
and not rely on the law of force, specially where
adjudicative bodies and Courts have ruled upon the merits of their claims
although adversely to them.

WHEREFORE, the judgment under review is hereby AFFIRMED
and petitioners are hereby ORDERED to disembark from the F/B Caribbean and to
turn over possession of said vessel to private respondent Philippine Tuna
Ventures, Inc., without prejudice to the continued prosecution of their demands
for labor benefits before the labor tribunal, which will surely be protective
of their just deserts.  The Temporary
Restraining Order issued by this Court on 17 September 1986 is hereby LIFTED.  Treble costs against petitioners.

This judgment is
immediately executory.

SO ORDERED.

Yap (Chairman), Paras,
Padilla, and Sarmiento,
JJ., concur.