GR L 28805; (April, 1969) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-28805 April 29, 1969
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION SUPERVISORS’ UNION, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION EMPLOYEES & WORKERS ASSOCIATION, ATTY. SIMPLICIO S. BALCOS and HONORABLE JUDGE ARSENIO MARTINEZ as Presiding Judge of the Court of Industrial Relations, respondents.
FACTS
On April 16, 1968, the Supreme Court issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the National Power Corporation (NPC) from making deductions from the salary differentials and/or salary increases of NPC supervisors corresponding to a 20% attorney’s fee payable to Atty. Simplicio S. Balcos, and restraining the Presiding Judge of the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) from conducting further proceedings in CIR Case No. 81-IPA insofar as it involves or affects the petitioner union. Subsequently, Carmen Quilop and others filed a motion seeking clarification on whether the injunction applied to them and, if not, to authorize the CIR to proceed with hearings to determine their pay under Republic Act No. 4657 (Teves Law) and the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement between NPC and the National Power Corporation Employees and Workers Association. The CIR had earlier set a hearing for this purpose on November 26, 1968, but it was not held due to an objection that it would violate the Supreme Court’s injunction. The petitioner union commented that it was not concerned with proceedings involving non-members as long as its rights and interests were not affected. The respondent workers association objected to the hearing pending a determination of whether the movants were supervisors and suggested their remedy was to seek reconsideration of the CIR order holding the proceedings in abeyance.
ISSUE
Whether hearings to be conducted by the Court of Industrial Relations to determine the pay of movants (Carmen Quilop and others) and to determine if they belong to the supervisors class would violate the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the Supreme Court.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that such hearings would not violate the writ of preliminary injunction. The injunction specifically restrained deductions from the salary differentials or increases of NPC supervisors for the 20% attorney’s fee and restrained further proceedings in CIR Case No. 81-IPA only insofar as it involves or affects the petitioner union. Therefore, hearings for the purpose of determining the movants’ pay and their status as supervisors may proceed, provided no order is issued that provides for deductions from the supervisors’ salary differentials or increases, or that grants any relief adversely affecting the petitioner union.