G.R. No. L-9350; May 20, 1957
CEBU PORT LABOR UNION, represented by its President ALEJO CABABAJAY, petitioner, vs. STATES MARINE CORPORATION, NICASIO PANSACALA, ANDRES TURA, ALFONSO VILLAJAS, and PERPETUO REGIS, respondents.

FACTS

The Cebu Port Labor Union filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Cebu for recognition of stevedoring service and injunction against the States Marine Corporation and several individuals (capataces of a group of laborers/stevedores). The Union alleged it had been awarded a contract for the exclusive right to load and unload cargo from the vessel M/V Bisayas, formerly owned by Elizalde & Co. and later owned/operated by States Marine Corporation. The Union claimed the respondent corporation was about to give the stevedoring work to the other respondents, violating an agreement between the corporation’s manager and the Union’s president, and sought a preliminary and permanent injunction to prevent this and to have its right to the work declared.
The lower court issued an ex parte preliminary injunction. The individual respondents moved for its dissolution and later filed a motion to dismiss on grounds including lack of jurisdiction (contending the case was a labor dispute falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations), failure to state a cause of action, and that the respondent corporation had been dissolved and lacked legal capacity. The lower court denied the motion to dismiss, proceeded to trial, and rendered judgment in favor of the Union. It found a verbal agreement existed to award the stevedoring work for the M/V Melliza (formerly M/V Bisayas) to the Union, issued a permanent injunction against the individual respondents, and ordered them to reimburse the Union for wages its members failed to earn. The respondents appealed.

ISSUE

The primary issue involves the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance over the case. Specifically, whether the case, involving a dispute over the right to perform stevedoring work, falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations as a labor dispute, or within the jurisdiction of the regular courts.

RULING

The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the lower court and dismissed the petition. The Court held that the case involves a labor dispute over which the Court of Industrial Relations has exclusive jurisdiction. Citing the case of PAFLU vs. Tan, the Court ruled that the controversy—a dispute between two groups of laborers over which should be given the work of loading and unloading a vessel, which necessarily affected the terms and conditions of their employment—was an industrial or labor dispute. Such disputes are placed by law under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations. Consequently, the Court of First Instance had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case. The Supreme Court did not find it necessary to discuss the other errors assigned by the appellants due to this dispositive jurisdictional ruling.