Petitioner vs. vs. Respondents: Second Division
Petitioner vs. vs. Respondents: Second Division
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.