GR L 21016; (July, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21016 July 30, 1965
BCI EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS UNION (PAFLU), petitioner, vs. HON. PIO MARCOS and BENGUET CONSOLIDATED, INC., respondents.
FACTS
Benguet Consolidated, Inc. Employees and Workers Union (PAFLU) filed a notice of strike on December 28, 1962, and the company filed a notice of lockout. Conciliation failed. On March 3, 1963, the union declared a strike and began picketing at the company’s mining areas. Benguet Consolidated, Inc. filed a petition (Civil Case No. 1240) in the Court of First Instance of Baguio on March 6, 1963, seeking to restrain the picketing. The union moved to dismiss, arguing the strike arose from unfair labor practice acts subject of pending cases in the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR), specifically Case No. 2363-ULP (filed June 20, 1960) and Case No. 3289-ULP (filed August 29, 1962), and that the petition failed to meet jurisdictional requirements under Republic Act 875. The motion was denied, and the CFI issued a preliminary injunction on March 12, 1963. The union then filed this certiorari petition with the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance of Baguio had jurisdiction to entertain the company’s petition for injunction against picketing arising from a labor dispute already pending before the Court of Industrial Relations.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted certiorari, declaring the respondent judge without jurisdiction. The labor dispute precipitating the strike and picketing was already involved in two unfair labor practice cases pending before the CIR, which had acquired prior jurisdiction. The CIR’s jurisdiction over unfair labor practice cases is exclusive under Section 5(a) of Republic Act 875. Since the issue in the CFI action was interwoven with the pending unfair labor practice cases, it fell outside the jurisdiction of regular courts. This rule applies even if the petition alleges acts of violence, as injunctive relief for such acts can be obtained from the CIR, thereby avoiding multiplicity of suits. The preliminary injunction issued by this Court was made permanent.