GR L 19912; (January, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-19912 January 30, 1965
AURELIA ABO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. PHILAME (KG) EMPLOYEES & WORKERS UNION, PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT & GENERAL WORKERS ORGANIZATION, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
FACTS
Plaintiffs, employees of Philippine American Embroideries, Inc., filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. They alleged that from March 24, 1961, to May 6, 1961, the individual defendants, acting as officers and/or members of the defendant labor unions and in their individual capacity, through concerted action, prevented the plaintiffs from entering the premises of their workplace by the use of force, violence, and intimidation. Plaintiffs sought payment of P1,410.75 for lost wages, P5,000 as moral damages, P5,000 as exemplary damages, and P1,000 as attorney’s fees. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the court had no jurisdiction, the labor dispute had been amicably settled, and the subject matter was pending in an unfair labor practice case before the Court of Industrial Relations where plaintiffs should have intervened. The lower court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the acts described constituted unfair labor practice under the Industrial Peace Act ( Republic Act No. 875 ).
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction over the complaint, or whether jurisdiction was vested exclusively in the Court of Industrial Relations because the acts alleged constituted an unfair labor practice.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court held that jurisdiction must be determined based solely on the allegations of the complaint. The complaint did not allege that the acts of force, violence, and intimidation were committed in connection with a labor dispute or to coerce the plaintiffs in the exercise of their right to self-organization under Section 3 of the Industrial Peace Act. Since the complaint did not on its face make out a case of unfair labor practice, the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction. The lower court erred in considering evidence outside the complaint to conclude that a labor dispute existed. Furthermore, Section 24 of the Industrial Peace Act, which grants immunity to labor organizations for acts done in furtherance of an industrial dispute, was inapplicable because the complaint did not allege that the defendants’ acts were in furtherance of such a dispute.