Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Petitioner vs. vs. Respondents: Second Division

    Uploaded by

    Janine Oliva
    36 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a resolution from the Supreme Court of the Philippines regarding a labor dispute. The union representing workers at Super Garments picketed not only their employer but also Rustan Commercial Corporation, alleging goods were being moved between the two companies. Rustan sued in regular court for an injunction, while also filing a case with the National Labor Relations Commission. The Supreme Court found no labor dispute existed between the union and Rustan, so the regular court had jurisdiction, but that the case filed with the labor commission was improper and must be withdrawn. The petition seeking to enjoin the regular court case was dismissed.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Trade_Unions_of_the_Philippines_v._Coscolluela

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a resolution from the Supreme Court of the Philippines regarding a labor dispute. The union representing workers at Super Garments picketed not only their employer but also Rustan Commercial Corporation, alleging goods were being moved between the two companies. Rustan sued in regular court for an injunction, while also filing a case with the National Labor Relations Commission. The Supreme Court found no labor dispute existed between the union and Rustan, so the regular court had jurisdiction, but that the case filed with the labor commission was improper and must be withdrawn. The petition seeking to enjoin the regular court case was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    36 views2 pages

    Petitioner vs. vs. Respondents: Second Division

    Uploaded by

    Janine Oliva
    This document summarizes a resolution from the Supreme Court of the Philippines regarding a labor dispute. The union representing workers at Super Garments picketed not only their employer but also Rustan Commercial Corporation, alleging goods were being moved between the two companies. Rustan sued in regular court for an injunction, while also filing a case with the National Labor Relations Commission. The Supreme Court found no labor dispute existed between the union and Rustan, so the regular court had jurisdiction, but that the case filed with the labor commission was improper and must be withdrawn. The petition seeking to enjoin the regular court case was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 71959. November 28, 1985.]

    TRADE UNIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES & ALLIED SERVICES LOCAL


    CHAPTER NO. 1158 (SUPER GARMENTS MANUFACTURING
    CORPORATION WORKERS UNION) , petitioner, vs. HON. JOSE L.
    COSCOLLUELA, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH CXLVI REGIONAL
    TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI and RUSTAN COMMERCIAL CORPORATION ,
    respondents.

    RESOLUTION

    ABAD SANTOS , J : p

    The petition seeks to enjoin the public respondent from further proceeding in Civil Case
    No. 10905 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Metro Manila. Upon the ling of the
    petition this Court issued a temporary restraining order and required the private
    respondent to comment.
    Petitioner union led a notice of strike with the Ministry of Labor and Employment against
    Super Garments Manufacturing Corporation on May 12, 1985. The strike commenced on
    June 8, 1985 and is said to be still on.
    Super Garments and Rustan Commercial Corporation have separate compartments in the
    same building at Malugay and Mayapis streets. It is called the Yupangco building.
    It is alleged by the petitioner union that goods of Super Garments were spirited out of its
    strike-bound premises thru Rustan's warehouse. Whereupon, the union picketed not only
    Super Garments but also Rustan. As a result Rustan led Civil Case No. 10905 before the
    respondent judge for injunction and damages thru the PECABAR law of ce and petition
    No. 971 with the National Labor Relations Commission also to enjoin the union from
    picketing its premises. The petition was filed by another counsel, Atty. Armando V. Ampil.
    In Civil Case No. 10906, the respondent judge issued an order or June 21, 1985 setting
    "the hearing of the application for a writ of preliminary injunction on June 27, 1985 at 2:00
    o'clock in the afternoon." On July 15, 1985, the respondent judge issued the writ after
    nding no employer-employee relationship between the parties. This order prompted the
    petitioner union to come to this Court for the purpose aforesaid.
    In the meantime, petitioner union on July 12, 1985, led a complaint for unfair labor
    practice against both Super Garments and Rustan alleging that the former is but the
    manufacturing arm of the latter. prLL

    Petitioner union claims that respondent judge has no jurisdiction to issue an injunction
    because the case is a labor dispute, that the prerogative belongs to the Minister of Labor
    and Employment. Upon the other hand, private respondent Rustan says that the
    respondent judge has jurisdiction because there is no labor dispute between it and the
    CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
    union even as it went to the National Labor Relations Commission to seek identical relief.
    At this stage there appears to be no labor dispute between the petitioner and the private
    respondent for which reason the latter was justi ed in seeking relief in respondent judge's
    court. The unfair labor complaint led by petitioner union on July 12, 1985 does not prove
    a labor relationship. By the same token it was improper for the private respondent to have
    filed Case No. 971 with the National Labor Relations Commission.
    In the light of the foregoing, the petition is dismissed for lack of merit and the temporary
    restraining order issued on September 23, 1985 is hereby lifted. However, private
    respondent Rustan Commercial Corporation is directed to withdraw its case before the
    National Labor Relations Commission. No costs.
    SO ORDERED.
    Concepcion, Jr. (Chairman), Escolin, Cuevas and Alampay, JJ., concur.

    CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com

    You might also like