G.R. No. L-3871 February 29, 1952
DAVAO STEVEDORES MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATION, petitioner, vs. COMPAÑIA MARITIMA, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

The Compañia Maritima and Manila Steamship Co. operate vessels engaged in coastwise shipping between Manila and Davao, with stopovers including Cebu. The stevedoring work on board these vessels at Cebu and Mindanao ports is handled by members of the Katubsanan sa Mamumuo labor union from Cebu, under contract with the shipping companies. These union members (40-60 persons) travel with the vessels to various ports, working only aboard ship, while wharf work is handled by local stevedores. The Davao Stevedores Mutual Benefit Association proposed to all ship agents in Davao that its members handle the stevedoring work on board vessels in that port and threatened to carry out this proposal regardless of the agents’ response. After failed mediation by the Department of Labor, the dispute was certified to the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR). The CIR initially issued a preliminary injunction against the association and, after a hearing with the intervention of Katubsanan, a decision awarded the stevedoring work on board the vessels in Davao port to the Davao association, excluding the Cebu stevedores. This decision was later revoked by a resolution of the CIR in banc, which is the subject of this petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Industrial Relations can cancel the existing contract between the shipping companies and the Cebu-based labor union and compel the companies to award the stevedoring work on board their vessels in Davao port exclusively to stevedores residing in Davao City.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the resolution of the CIR in banc. The petitioner’s proposal to exclude Cebu stevedores and award the work exclusively to Davao stevedores finds no support in law or reason. There is no law granting laborers of any locality a monopoly on work in that locality. Such a measure would be against public policy as it tends to promote sectionalism and disunity, conflicts with the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws, and interferes with the constitutional right to freedom of contract. The right to make contracts regarding one’s business is protected by the due process clause, and both employers and employees have an equal right to choose with whom to contract for labor. The petitioner’s attempt to solve alleged unemployment in Davao by ousting members of another union from their employment is inequitable and amounts to “robbing Peter to pay Paul.” The resolution appealed from is affirmed.