G.R. No. L-9115; August 31, 1956
PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS (PAFLU) and MAJESTIC & REPUBLIC THEATER EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PAFLU), petitioners, vs. HONORABLE BIENVENIDO A. TAN, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila and REMA, INCORPORATED, respondents.

FACTS

On May 9, 1955, respondent REMA, Incorporated filed an action for damages with preliminary injunction in the Court of First Instance of Manila against petitioners. REMA alleged it was the lessee and operator of the Republic and Majestic Theaters, having leased them from Goodwill Trading Co., Inc., which had purchased the theaters from L.C. Eugenio and Co., Inc. on April 27, 1955. REMA contended that the members of the petitioner labor unions were formerly employed by the previous owner, L.C. Eugenio and Co., Inc., but ceased to be employees upon the sale and subsequent lease, and that no employer-employee relation existed between REMA and the union members, hence no labor dispute. On May 10, 1955, after a hearing where petitioners challenged the court’s jurisdiction, respondent Judge Bienvenido A. Tan issued an order granting a writ of injunction, upon filing of a bond, to stop the picketing of the theaters by petitioners. The petitioners had been picketing since May 8, 1955. The background reveals that a collective bargaining agreement existed between the theater employees and the former theater owners, which was revised on February 16, 1955, and included a no-strike, no-lockout clause. The theaters were sold on March 31, 1955, and leased to REMA on April 26, 1955. On April 27, 1955, REMA required the former employees to apply for employment. The employees disputed the genuineness of the transfer, viewing it as a ruse to evade the collective bargaining agreement. A complaint for unfair labor practice was also filed before the Court of Industrial Relations on May 20, 1955.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Court of First Instance of Manila had jurisdiction to issue a preliminary injunction in the case, or whether jurisdiction over the matter, involving a labor dispute, lies exclusively with the Court of Industrial Relations under Republic Act No. 875 (The Industrial Peace Act).

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of First Instance of Manila had no jurisdiction to issue the injunction. The case involves a labor dispute as defined under Section 2(j) of Republic Act No. 875 , which includes any controversy concerning terms, tenure, or conditions of employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee. The petitioners, though not currently employed by REMA, disputed the validity of the transfer of ownership and considered themselves employees in contemplation of law, alleging the sale was fictitious to avoid the collective bargaining agreement. This controversy constitutes a labor dispute. Under Section 9(d) of Republic Act No. 875 , no court of the Philippines, except the Court of Industrial Relations, has jurisdiction to issue a temporary or permanent injunction in any case involving or growing out of a labor dispute. The Court of Industrial Relations has exclusive jurisdiction over such injunctions. Therefore, the order of the respondent judge was issued without jurisdiction and is null and void. The writ of certiorari and prohibition was granted, and the preliminary injunction issued by this Court was made permanent.