G.R. No. L-3871 February 29, 1952
DAVAO STEVEDORES MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATION, petitioner, vs. COMPAÑIA MARITIMA, ET AL, respondents.

FACTS

The Compañia Maritima and Manila Steamship Co. operate vessels engaged in coastwise shipping between Manila and Davao, with stopovers in Cebu and other ports. The stevedoring work on board these vessels at Cebu and Mindanao ports is handled by members of the Katubsanan sa Mamumuo, a labor union from Cebu, under a contract with both shipping companies. These members (40-60 persons) travel with the vessels to different ports of call but work only aboard ship; wharf work, including arrastre, is handled by local stevedores. The controversy arose when the Davao Stevedores Mutual Benefit Association proposed to all ship agents in the port of Davao that the association handle the stevedoring work on board their vessels while in that port and threatened to carry out this proposal regardless of the agents’ response. After failed mediation by the Department of Labor, the dispute was certified to the Court of Industrial Relations. The court initially issued a preliminary injunction against the association and, after a hearing with the intervention of the Katubsanan sa Mamumuo, a decision awarded the stevedoring work on board the vessels in Davao port to members of the Davao Stevedores Association, excluding the Cebu stevedores. However, this decision was later revoked by a resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations in banc, which is the subject of this review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Industrial Relations erred in revoking its initial decision and thereby refusing to cancel the existing contract between the shipping companies and the Katubsanan sa Mamumuo, and to compel the companies to award the stevedoring work on board their vessels in Davao port exclusively to stevedores residing in Davao City.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations. The petitioner’s proposal to cancel the existing contract and exclude Cebu stevedores in favor of Davao residents finds no support in law or reason. There is no law granting laborers of any locality a monopoly on work in that area. Such a measure would be against public policy as it tends to sectionalism and disunity, conflicts with the constitutional guarantee of equal protection, and interferes with the constitutional right to freedom of contract. Citing Pampanga Bus Company, Inc. vs. Pambusco Employees’ Union, Inc., the Court emphasized the equality of right between employer and employee to choose with whom to contract for labor. The petitioner’s attempt to solve alleged unemployment in Davao by ousting members of another union from their employment is iniquitous and amounts to “robbing Peter to pay Paul.” The resolution was affirmed without costs.