Case Digest (G.R. No. L-27382)
Facts:
The case involves the petitioner, Associated Labor Union, and several respondents, including the Court of Industrial Relations, the Secretary of Labor, the National Sugar Workers' Union-PAFLU, and Central Azucarera de la Carlota. The events leading to this case began with an order issued by the Court of Industrial Relations on January 28, 1967, which called for a certification election. The petitioner sought to restrain this election, claiming that nearly eighty rank-and-file employees, presumably members of the petitioner union, were excluded from the list of eligible voters. After the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the Court en banc on March 14, 1967, the Supreme Court required the respondents to file an answer on April 7, 1967, but did not issue a preliminary injunction. The National Sugar Workers' Union, in its answer, contended that the certificat...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-27382)
Facts:
Petitioner's Plea: The petitioner, Associated Labor Union, filed a certiorari and prohibition proceeding to restrain the holding of a certification election ordered by the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) on January 28, 1967. The petitioner objected to the election due to the alleged exclusion of nearly 80 rank-and-file employees, presumably members of the petitioner union, from the list of eligible voters.
Respondent's Position: The respondent, National Sugar Workers' Union, countered that the certification election had already taken place, but the canvassing of ballots was enjoined by the CIR. They argued that the petitioner's suit was merely a tactic to harass the respondent union, knowing it would likely lose in a free election.
Supreme Court's Initial Action: On April 7, 1967, the Supreme Court required respondents to file an answer but did not issue a preliminary injunction.
Subsequent Developments: On May 19, 1967, the Supreme Court ordered the CIR to allow the counting of the ballots cast in the certification election and to report the results to the Supreme Court. However, no further action was taken by the parties, and the case remained dormant.
Mootness of the Case: Due to the passage of time, the abolition of the CIR, and the lack of action by the petitioner, the case became moot and academic.
Issue:
- Whether the petition for certiorari and prohibition to restrain the certification election should be granted.
- Whether the case had become moot and academic due to the passage of time and lack of action by the parties.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari and prohibition for being moot and academic. No costs were awarded.
Ratio:
- (Unlock)