GR L 21610; (March, 1968) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21610, L-21619, L-25767 March 15, 1968
CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO, petitioner, vs. DON PEDRO SECURITY GUARDS UNION, HON. ARSENIO MARTINEZ, EMILIANO TABIGNE and AMANDO BUGAYONG, Associate Judges of the Court of Industrial Relations, respondents. (L-21610) / DON PEDRO SECURITY GUARDS UNION, petitioner, vs. CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents. (L-21619 & L-25767)
FACTS
The Central Azucarera Don Pedro (Central) organized its Security Guards Department in June 1947. On September 13, 1955, a majority of the security guards organized the Don Pedro Security Guards Union (Union), which was registered on November 4, 1955. On September 21, 1955, a case (1017-V) for collection of overtime pay, night compensation, and separation pay was filed against the Central by some guards. The Union alleged discrimination against the claimant guards thereafter, while the Central cited harassment of non-claimants by claimants. On October 27, 1955, the claimants requested an indefinite leave of absence without pay effective November 1, 1955, which was approved. On December 19, 1955, they notified the Central of their intent to return to work on January 1, 1956. The Central, on December 20, 1955, placed them on leave with pay effective January 1, 1956, until further notice. On January 14, 1956, the Central terminated their services and offered separation pay. On January 31, 1956, a complaint was filed with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) charging the Central with discriminatory dismissal of 28 Union members under the Industrial Peace Act. On December 13, 1962, the CIR found the Central guilty of unfair labor practice and ordered the reinstatement with back wages and without loss of seniority rights of all complainants except Juan Lama and Pelagio Dellupac. The Central (in L-21610) and the Union (in L-21619, contesting the exclusion of Lama and Dellupac and seeking clarification of “seniority rights”) appealed. In L-25767, the Union appealed a CIR order deferring execution of the reinstatement order pending appeal. Pending resolution, the parties filed motions to withdraw the petitions on January 31, 1968, citing an amicable settlement where the Union members concerned were engaged elsewhere and did not wish reinstatement, aiming to preserve industrial peace and job opportunities.
ISSUE
The main issues raised in the petitions were: (1) whether the dismissal was an unfair labor practice under the Industrial Peace Act; (2) whether the CIR erred in excluding two guards from reinstatement and in not clarifying “seniority rights”; and (3) whether execution of the reinstatement order should be stayed pending appeal. However, these issues were rendered moot by the amicable settlement between the parties.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions for certiorari in all three cases (L-21610, L-21619, and L-25767) as moot and academic, without pronouncement as to costs. The Court found that the amicable settlement reached by the parties, wherein the Union members concerned were engaged in gainful occupations elsewhere and did not seek reinstatement, had rendered the cases moot.