GR 47465; (June, 1941) (Digest)
G.R. No. 47465 ; June 27, 1941
VICENTE DIAZ, plaintiff and appellant, vs. POPULAR LABOR UNION OF CAIBIRAN, defendant and appellee.
FACTS
Vicente Diaz, a landowner and merchant from Caibiran, Leyte, filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Leyte against the Popular Labor Union of Caibiran, a duly registered labor association. The complaint alleged that since June 6, 1938, the defendant union, through intimidation and threats by its members and its president, Andres Maderazo, had unlawfully prevented Diaz from loading and unloading cargo from his engines and boats at the port of Caibiran. The union forced Diaz and the vessels to use only its members for loading and unloading services at excessive rates set by the union, thereby depriving Diaz of his freedom to use his own workers or the crew of the vessels for these tasks. Diaz sought a preliminary prohibitory injunction to stop these acts and claimed damages of five hundred pesos (P500) for losses already suffered. The trial court, after a hearing where the defendant (represented by the public defender) argued lack of jurisdiction because the case involved a labor dispute, issued an order on August 9, 1938, dismissing the complaint and denying the injunction. Diaz’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this appeal, which involves solely the question of the lower court’s jurisdiction.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction over the complaint, or whether it lacked jurisdiction because the case involved a labor dispute between employers and employees.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The allegations of the complaint did not establish a labor dispute or controversy between employers and employees. The members of the defendant union were not and had never been employees of the plaintiff Diaz, who had his own workers. Consequently, no employer-employee relationship existed between Diaz and the union members. The principal object of the complaint was to claim damages of P500 caused by the acts of the union’s affiliates in preventing Diaz’s workers from performing the customary loading and unloading work. The request for a prohibitory injunction was merely a remedy to prevent further and greater damage to his interests. Therefore, the case did not involve a labor dispute. The Supreme Court revoked the appealed order of August 9, 1938, and ruled in favor of the appellant, with costs against the appellee.