G.R. No. L-11555; May 31, 1960
DELFIN CUETO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. MONTANO A. ORTIZ, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

On November 13, 1956, the Nasipit Labor Union and Nasipit Stevedoring Co., Inc., filed a complaint for damages in the Court of First Instance of Agusan (Civil Case No. 517) against the petitioners. The complaint alleged that the Nasipit Stevedoring Co., Inc., was the exclusive contractor for loading/unloading cargo for two lumber companies at the port of Nasipit and had hired the Nasipit Labor Union to perform the stevedoring work. It further alleged that on November 6, 1956, the petitioners, without legal right, used threats, force, intimidation, and coercion to prevent the union’s laborers from loading timber onto vessels, causing physical injuries to a security guard and inflicting actual and pecuniary damages. The plaintiffs prayed for a writ of preliminary injunction ex parte. The lower court, following the procedure in Section 9(d) of Republic Act No. 875 , set the petition for hearing and subsequently issued the writ upon the plaintiffs posting a P20,000 bond. The petitioners objected to the writ’s issuance and filed the present petition for certiorari and prohibition, alleging the bond was formally and substantially defective and that the writ varied from the complaint’s prayer and did not comply with Section 9 of Republic Act No. 875 .

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint and issue the writ of preliminary injunction, considering the case involves a labor dispute.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court, citing Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) et al. vs. Hon. Bienvenido Tan et al., held that courts of first instance retain jurisdiction to settle issues and determine the propriety of issuing injunctions in labor disputes, provided the dispute does not: (1) affect an industry indispensable to the national interest and so certified by the President; (2) refer to minimum wage under the Minimum Wage Law or hours of employment under the Eight-Hour Labor Law; or (3) involve an unfair labor practice. The present case, which is essentially for the recovery of damages due to alleged acts of interference and violence, does not fall under any of these exceptions. Therefore, the lower court had jurisdiction and the authority to issue the writ of preliminary injunction as an incident to the case. The alleged defects in the bond do not affect the court’s jurisdiction, and such errors were not first brought to the lower court’s attention via a motion for reconsideration, a requisite for petitions of this nature. The petition for certiorari and prohibition was denied.