GR L 4111; (March, 1952) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4111 March 31, 1952
UNITED WORKERS OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioners-appellees, vs. BISAYA LAND TRANSPORTATION CO., DISIDERIO DALISAY, MOISES F. DALISAY, and DAVAO STEVEDORES MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATION, respondents-appellants.
FACTS
The Bisaya Land Transportation Company operates a shipping line between Cebu and Davao. On May 9, 1949, it entered into a three-year contract with the United Workers of the Philippines (UWP), a labor union based in Cebu, whereby UWP would furnish laborers for stevedoring work on board the company’s vessels in Mindanao ports. The arrangement worked well except in the ports of Davao and Sasa, where the Davao Stevedores Mutual Benefit Association (DSMBA) claimed the exclusive right to perform all stevedoring work and threatened violence and stoppage of “arrastre” (cargo handling on wharves) if UWP members persisted in doing the stevedoring work on board the vessels. Unable to obtain redress from the Department of Labor, UWP filed a petition with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) to compel the company to allow UWP members to perform the stevedoring work and to enjoin DSMBA and its officers from interfering. The CIR granted a writ of preliminary injunction. DSMBA and its officers challenged the writ via certiorari, arguing it was issued without jurisdiction and with abuse of authority.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Industrial Relations had jurisdiction to issue the writ of preliminary injunction against the Davao Stevedores Mutual Benefit Association.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Industrial Relations had jurisdiction. The controversy constituted an industrial dispute under Commonwealth Act No. 103 , as it involved a labor dispute affecting employers and employees, likely to cause a strike, involving more than thirty laborers, and was certified by the Secretary of Labor as existing and proper to be dealt with by the CIR for public interest. The DSMBA was a necessary party to the action as it was actively preventing the fulfillment of the contract through threats of violence and work stoppage. The CIR did not abuse its discretion in issuing the restraining order to prevent acts detrimental to public interest. The petition for certiorari to annul the writ was denied.