GR L 32216; (October, 1984) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-32216 October 23, 1984
NATIONAL MINES & ALLIED WORKERS’ UNION (NAMAWUMIF), petitioner, vs. HON. GABRIEL V. VALERO, Presiding Judge of Branch I of Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte, and CAMARINES NORTE MAHOGANY CO., INC., respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Camarines Norte Mahogany Co., Inc., a log exporter, stocks logs at its pond in Mercedes, Camarines Norte. Petitioner union, representing dock workers and stevedores at that port, requested the company to recognize it as the exclusive bargaining representative for stevedoring work. The company rejected this, stating it had already authorized Mercedes Arrastre for loading. The union then entered an agreement with Philippine Island Arrastre, an alleged contractor, recognizing the union as the bargaining representative. When the vessel “Dai Leung” arrived to load the company’s logs, the union filed a notice of strike and prevented the loading.
The company filed a complaint for injunction with the Court of First Instance (CFI), alleging no relationship with the union and claiming daily demurrage losses. The respondent judge, citing risk of irreparable injury, issued an ex parte writ of preliminary injunction on June 3, 1970, restraining the union from preventing loading onto the “Dai Leung.” The union moved for reconsideration and to dismiss, arguing the writ was issued without a hearing and that jurisdiction lay with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) due to a labor dispute involving unfair labor practice. The CFI denied the motions and modified the injunction on June 18, 1970, to cover loading onto any vessel.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing the ex parte preliminary injunction and whether the CFI, not the CIR, had jurisdiction over the case.
RULING
The Supreme Court upheld the CFI’s jurisdiction and the propriety of the injunction. On jurisdiction, the determinative factor is the allegation in the complaint. The company’s complaint expressly alleged no connection or employer-employee relationship with the union, as it had authorized a different arrastre service. These allegations negated the existence of an employer-employee relationship, which is essential for CIR jurisdiction over labor disputes. The union’s contrary allegations in its motions did not automatically divest the CFI of jurisdiction; such matters required full trial.
Regarding the ex parte injunction, the Court found it justified under the exception in Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court. The company demonstrated through its verified complaint that great or irreparable injury—specifically, substantial daily demurrage charges due to the vessel’s delay—would occur before a hearing on notice could be held. The issuance was thus proper to prevent immediate and continuous financial loss. The petition was dismissed.