G.R. No. L-24984 July 29, 1968
PHILIPPINE COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRONICS & ELECTRICITY WORKERS’ FEDERATION (PCWF) and ELIGIO GALVEZ, petitioners, vs. THE HON. JUDGE RAMON O. NOLASCO, of the Court of First Instance of Manila, AVEGON, INCORPORATED, and JOAQUIN L. GONZALES, President and General Manager, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Avegon, Incorporated is a domestic corporation. Petitioner PCWF is one of two labor unions operating in the company. On March 17, 1965, PCWF applied for a certification election with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR). On April 28, 1965, Avegon laid off seventy employees, twenty-seven of whom were PCWF members, citing business depression. On April 27, 1965, an unfair labor practice charge (CIR 519-ULP) was filed against Avegon. On May 4, 1965, a second unfair labor practice charge (Case 532-ULP) was filed by PCWF with the CIR, protesting the dismissal of the twenty-seven members. On the same day, PCWF sent a protest letter to Avegon. On May 5, 1965, PCWF declared a strike and picketed Avegon’s premises. On May 10, 1965, Avegon filed a verified complaint for damages with a prayer for preliminary injunction in the Court of First Instance of Manila against PCWF and Eligio Galvez. The complaint alleged the strike was illegal, malicious, unjustified, and conducted without proper notice, and that picketers prevented non-striking employees from entering. It specifically averred that Avegon had not committed any unfair labor practice. The court issued an ex parte restraining order on May 13, 1965, and later a writ of preliminary injunction on July 30, 1965. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the trial court had no jurisdiction and the injunction was void for non-compliance with Section 9 of Republic Act 875. The motion was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance of Manila had jurisdiction over Avegon’s complaint for damages and injunction arising from the strike, or whether jurisdiction exclusively pertained to the Court of Industrial Relations because the case involved a labor dispute and unfair labor practice.

RULING

The Court of First Instance of Manila had no jurisdiction; exclusive jurisdiction was vested in the Court of Industrial Relations. The allegations in Avegon’s complaint, including the protest over dismissals, the strike, and the picketing, clearly showed the existence of a labor dispute. The acts complained of in the civil case “arose out of, or are connected or interwoven with” the unfair labor practice charges previously filed by the union with the CIR. The CIR’s jurisdiction over cases involving unfair labor practice is exclusive. The claim for damages was interwoven with the unfair labor practice, and its resolution would depend on the evidence in the unfair labor practice case. Therefore, the Court of First Instance could not entertain the complaint or issue the ancillary writ of preliminary injunction. The writ issued was void. The petition for certiorari and prohibition was granted.