G.R. No. L-28472 April 30, 1968
CALTEX FILIPINO MANAGERS AND SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC., respondents.

FACTS

The Caltex Filipino Managers and Supervisors Association (CAFIMSA) filed charges of unfair labor practice against Caltex (Philippines), Inc. before the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR). After a preliminary investigation, the CIR’s Prosecution Division filed a formal complaint. While the case was pending, CAFIMSA declared a strike on April 22, 1965, which ended with a Return to Work Agreement on May 30, 1965. The unfair labor practice case (No. 4344-ULP) and a related certification case (No. 1484-MC(1)) were jointly tried. After the company had rested its case and CAFIMSA had presented many witnesses, CAFIMSA filed a Motion to admit a Supplemental Pleading. This Supplemental Pleading charged the company with new acts of unfair labor practice allegedly committed after the strike of April 22, 1965, and after the execution of the Return to Work Agreement. The CIR denied the motion, ruling that it had no jurisdiction over the new matters because they were foreign to the case at bar and had not been processed in a preliminary investigation as required by law. CAFIMSA’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CIR en banc. CAFIMSA then filed a Petition with the Supreme Court, arguing that the CIR’s refusal violated the liberal policy of the law and Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 875 . Caltex moved to dismiss the Petition, arguing it was filed out of time and that the issue was settled in National Union of Printing Workers vs. Asia Printing Company. The Supreme Court gave due course to the Petition and later resolved to consider it as a special civil action of mandamus.

ISSUE

Whether mandamus will issue to compel the Court of Industrial Relations to admit a supplemental pleading which charges additional acts of unfair labor practice without a prior preliminary investigation having been conducted relative to those new charges.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the Petition. The Court held that the requirement of a prior preliminary investigation for a charge of unfair labor practice is mandatory, as established in National Union of Printing Workers vs. Asia Printing Co. The Supplemental Pleading was, in substance, a new charge for unfair labor practice based on acts occurring after the original complaint. Therefore, it could not be admitted without first being subjected to the mandatory preliminary investigation. This investigation is necessary to protect the respondent from frivolous charges and to prevent the unnecessary dissipation of the CIR’s time. While the CIR is not narrowly constrained by technical rules of procedure, it cannot ignore this mandatory statutory requirement. The Court further held that mandamus does not lie to control the CIR’s discretion in denying the admission of the pleading, as the act sought to be compelled is not ministerial. CAFIMSA had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by instituting a separate charge for the new acts before the Prosecution Division of the CIR.