GR L 19373; (July, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-19373; July 29, 1967
FELIX ASEJO, JOVITO AGUILLON, CARLOS DRANTOS, TEOFISTO JADIA, PRIMO MONES, SIMPLICIO ESTARES, BENITO BAWIGA, JOSE JAMCO, JOSE RANDIVILLA, BERNARDINO ELESTERIO and MARIANO CONSUL, petitioners-appellees, vs. ADRIANO CHUA JOY, doing business under the firm name and style SOUTH SEA SHIPPING LINE, ET ALS., respondents. SOUTH SEA SEAMEN’S UNION OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent-appellant.
FACTS
The individual petitioners-appellees were unlicensed crew members employed by respondent Adriano Chua Joy of South Sea Shipping Lines. The respondent South Sea Seamen’s Union of the Philippines (referred to in the resolution as both “United Seamen’s Union” and “respondent union”) was the employees’ representative and had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the employer executed on June 28, 1957, for two years. This CBA contained a closed shop clause. While still members of the respondent union, the petitioners affiliated with a rival union, the General Maritime Stevedores Union of the Philippines. As members of this rival union, they joined others in filing a petition for certification election with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) on April 30, 1958. In May 1958, upon learning of this petition, the respondent union demanded the employer terminate the petitioners’ services pursuant to the closed shop agreement. The petitioners then filed an action for declaratory relief with preliminary injunction in the Court of First Instance of Manila, seeking to declare the pertinent closed shop provision illegal and void. The court granted a preliminary injunction on July 25, 1958, and after trial, made the injunction permanent on February 6, 1959. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the case has been rendered moot and academic by supervening events.
RULING
Yes, the case was dismissed for being moot. The Supreme Court noted that in a related case, G.R. No. L-14689 (General Maritime Stevedores’ Union, etc. vs. South Sea Shipping Lines, et al.), decided on July 26, 1960, the Court had ordered a certification election to determine the proper bargaining representative for the employees. The Court, in a resolution dated April 25, 1967, required the parties to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed, as the ordered certification election may have already rendered the issues moot. Both parties failed to comply with the show-cause order. Consequently, the petition was dismissed without pronouncement as to costs.