A.M. No. P-04-1818 - Badoles-Algodon vs. Zaldivar

The petitioners were individual unlicensed crew members employed on vessels owned and operated by respondent Adriano Chua Joy, doing business under the firm name South Sea Shipping Lines.
Their employment was governed by a collective bargaining agreement executed on June 28, 1957, with the United Seamen’s Union of the Philippines, which contained a closed shop clause obligating employees to remain members of that union.

While still members of the United Seamen’s Union, the petitioners affiliated with a rival organization, the General Maritime Stevedores Union of the Philippines.
Together with other crew members, they filed a petition for a certification election on April 30, 1958, with the Court of Industrial Relations, aiming to determine which union should legitimately serve as their bargaining representative.

In May 1958, the United Seamen’s Union, upon learning of the petitioners’ affiliation with the rival union and the filing of the certification petition, demanded that the employer terminate the petitioners’ services—allegedly in accordance with the closed shop provision of the collective bargaining agreement.
Facing the threat of termination and expulsion from their employment, the petitioners sought judicial relief.

The petitioners filed a complaint with the Court of First Instance of Manila for declaratory relief with a preliminary injunction, specifically requesting that the contested closed shop clause be declared illegal and void.
On July 25, 1958, the lower court granted the preliminary injunction, directing the respondents to refrain from terminating the petitioners’ employment and ousting them from their positions.
After trial, on February 6, 1959, the same court rendered the injunction permanent, upholding the petitioners’ request for relief.
Meanwhile, the petition for certification election was dismissed by the Court of Industrial Relations on the ground that the existing collective bargaining agreement with the United Seamen’s Union was still in effect.
An appeal was later made from the dismissal order (G.R. No. L-14689), which had been decided by this Court on July 26, 1960.

On April 25, 1967, this Court issued a resolution linking the present case with the pending certification election matter.
The Court noted that, through its decision in the appealed certification election case, a certification election was ordered to settle which of the two unions should represent the employees, thereby potentially rendering the issues in the present case moot.
The resolution directed the parties to show cause within fifteen (15) days why the petition should not be dismissed.
Both parties received notice of the resolution but failed to show cause, leading to the dismissal of the petition without pronouncement as to costs.

Whether the closed shop clause contained in the collective bargaining agreement is enforceable given the petitioners’ affiliation with a rival union.
Whether the petitioners’ change in union affiliation, in light of the closed shop stipulation, constitutes sufficient grounds for their termination by the employer.
Whether the pending certification election (ordered in a connected case and addressing union representation) renders the issues in the present case moot.
Whether the failure of the parties to show cause within the allotted time justifies the dismissal of the petition.