GR L 23294; (April, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-23294. April 30, 1966
NAMARCO EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS ASSOCIATION, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE JUDGE EMILIANO TABIGNE OF THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and THE NATIONAL MARKETING CORPORATION, respondents.
FACTS
On July 8, 1964, petitioner Namarco Employees and Workers Association (NEWA) declared a strike against respondent National Marketing Corporation (NAMARCO) and established picket lines at NAMARCO’s premises. On July 16, 1964, NAMARCO filed an unfair labor practice charge against NEWA (CIR Case No. 8-ULP) and, on the same day, filed a verified petition for injunction (CIR Case No. 149-Inj.) under Section 9(d) of Republic Act No. 875 to restrain alleged coercive acts during the strike. After an ex parte hearing, respondent Judge Emiliano Tabigne issued a first restraining order on July 20, 1964, effective for five days from notice to NEWA (received July 22, 1964). NEWA did not challenge this order.
On July 30, 1964, NAMARCO filed a second verified petition for a restraining order, alleging that NEWA and its members defied the first order, rendering it ineffective. After an ex parte hearing, respondent Judge issued a second restraining order on August 3, 1964, also effective for five days from NEWA’s receipt. The following day, August 4, 1964, NEWA filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, questioning the validity of the second restraining order. Meanwhile, on September 4, 1964, after the petition was filed, the parties entered into a return-to-work agreement, ending the strike.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court should grant the petition for certiorari challenging the validity of the second restraining order issued by respondent Judge.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari without considering its merits, dismissing the case.
First, the Court held that only an award, order, or decision of the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) in banc—not that of an individual judge—is appealable to the Supreme Court. Petitioner NEWA should have first resorted to the CIR in banc by filing a motion for reconsideration before seeking relief from the Supreme Court. The CIR in banc possesses the implied power to stay or suspend the enforcement of a trial judge’s order pending resolution of a motion for reconsideration, especially when necessary to prevent the motion from becoming nugatory. Failure to exhaust this remedy by presenting a motion for reconsideration to the CIR in banc was fatal to the petition.
Second, the Court ruled that the dispute had become moot and academic. The parties entered into a return-to-work agreement on September 4, 1964, which ended the strike from which the incidents arose. Consequently, there was no live controversy requiring judicial intervention.
The petition was dismissed, with costs against petitioner NEWA.