G.R. No. L-12999; July 26, 1960
PAGKAKAISA SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA NG SAN MIGUEL BREWERY AT MGA KASAÑGAY (PAFLU), petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ, ETC., ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Pagkakaisa Samahang Manggagawa ng San Miguel Brewery at Mga Kasañgay (PAFLU), a duly registered labor union, secured a collective bargaining agreement with San Miguel Brewery, Inc. (the Company). An amendatory agreement dated August 6, 1956, included a provision (Section 2) wherein the Company would make payroll deductions for union dues and assessments based on individual worker authorizations. Pagkakaisa (PAFLU) prepared a check-off authorization form effective for one year or until the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement, whichever came later, and containing an irrevocability clause. Many employees signed it, but the Company initially refused to honor it, deeming the irrevocability clause illegal. Subsequently, about 500 employees who had signed revoked their authorizations in writing. These employees, along with others who refused to sign, later formed the respondent union, Nagkakaisa Union ng Manggagawa ng San Miguel Brewery at mga Kasañgay (FTF). Due to the Company’s refusal to honor the authorizations and its withholding of collected dues, Pagkakaisa (PAFLU) filed a petition for declaratory relief with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR). Presiding Judge Arsenio Martinez, after the Company waived its jurisdictional objection, acted as an arbitrator. On March 9, 1957, he issued an order declaring the check-off provision in the collective bargaining agreement still in full force and effect despite the revocations, and ordered the withheld money turned over to Pagkakaisa (PAFLU). The Company then advised the revoking employees it would comply. In response, the respondent union Nagkakaisa (FTF) and individual members filed a complaint for injunction with the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 32160) against the Company and Pagkakaisa (PAFLU) to stop the deductions. Respondent Judge Juan P. Enriquez issued a writ of preliminary injunction. Pagkakaisa (PAFLU) filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied. After a hearing, respondent Judge rendered a decision on September 9, 1957, granting a permanent injunction against the Company from making further deductions and ordering the return of all deductions made. Pagkakaisa (PAFLU) filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Judge refused to entertain and denied. Pagkakaisa (PAFLU) then filed the present petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction directly with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should grant the petition for certiorari to declare respondent Judge Juan P. Enriquez without jurisdiction and to enjoin the enforcement of his decision.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The petition was denied on two grounds. First, for the failure of the petitioner to file a proper motion for reconsideration before the respondent Judge. Although a motion was filed, it was deemed insufficient for not complying with legal requisites and was called a “mere scrap of paper.” The petitioner did not correct this error by filing a proper motion but came directly to the Supreme Court on certiorari. The writ of certiorari will not issue unless the error of the inferior court is first challenged through a motion for reconsideration. Second, because there was an adequate remedy available by appeal. The remedy of certiorari lies only when an appeal is not available, does not exist, or is not permitted by law, and there is no other speedy and adequate remedy. Since an appeal was available, the petition for certiorari was improper. Consequently, the petition was denied, costs were assessed against the petitioner, and the preliminary injunction previously issued by the Supreme Court was dissolved.