G.R. No. L-20307 February 26, 1965
YOUNG MEN LABOR UNION STEVEDORES, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

On April 25, 1961, Nasipit Lumber Company, Inc. (NALCO) entered into a contract with both Young Men Labor Union Stevedores (YMLUS) and Victory Stevedoring and Labor Union (VISLU) to undertake the stevedoring jobs on a 50-50 basis. On July 20, 1961, YMLUS demanded NALCO to withdraw the loading job from VISLU, claiming VISLU’s registration permit had been cancelled. VISLU refused to abandon its share, contending the cancellation order was not yet final. On August 2, 1961, YMLUS sent a notice of picketing to NALCO, threatening to picket starting August 9, 1961. On August 9, 1961, NALCO filed a petition with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) seeking, among others, an order to enjoin both unions to observe the status quo. On August 23, 1961, after a series of bloody incidents from the picketing and retaliation, NALCO filed another petition with the CIR praying for temporary restraining orders against both unions to prevent obstruction of loading operations and violent retaliation. Both unions initially filed motions to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds but later withdrew them and voluntarily submitted to the CIR’s jurisdiction. On May 16, 1962, the CIR Judge rendered a decision enjoining the parties to continue the 50-50 agreement until a certification election, to be undertaken by the Department of Labor, determines which union should have direct collective bargaining relationship with NALCO. YMLUS and NALCO filed motions for reconsideration, which were denied by the CIR en banc. YMLUS interposed the present petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Industrial Relations has jurisdiction over the controversy involving two rival labor unions and the employer regarding stevedoring work assignment and the order for a certification election.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Industrial Relations has jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed the CIR’s order. First, the petitioner is estopped from questioning the CIR’s jurisdiction because it withdrew its motion to dismiss and voluntarily submitted to the court’s jurisdiction and presented evidence. Second, matters pertaining to certification elections involving two or more unions fall under the jurisdiction of the CIR as provided in Section 12(b) of Republic Act No. 875 . The order for a certification election is the expedient way to solve the rivalry between the two unions and avoid friction. Certification proceedings are investigatory in nature, entrusted exclusively to the CIR, and the Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion in its order. The CIR did not prohibit the petitioner’s constitutional right to picket but only illegal acts in connection with picketing, which had resulted in bloody incidents. The CIR’s decision to continue the 50-50 arrangement pending the certification election’s final result was proper under the circumstances.