Facts:

The case titled Associated Labor Union v. Hon. Emiliano C. Tabigne, et al. arose from an original action for certiorari and prohibition initiated on September 30, 1970. The petitioner was the Associated Labor Union, while the respondents included Hon. Emiliano C. Tabigne, Associate Judge of the Court of Industrial Relations; the Philippine Packing Corporation; and the Bugo Cannery & Stevedores Labor Union-UOEF No. 42. The controversy centers around a certification election for the employees of the Philippine Packing Corporation originally petitioned by the employees on December 28, 1966. On January 10, 1969, Judge Tabigne ordered the holding of the election.

The order faced opposition as both the Philippine Packing Corporation and the labor union filed motions for reconsideration. They contended that the employee list, which dated back to December 31, 1966, had become outdated due to resignations and dismissals. The Court of Industrial Relations resolved to include the payr

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• The case arises from an original action for certiorari and prohibition filed by Associated Labor Union (petitioner) against respondent Judge Emiliano C. Tabigne, who was handling the certification election case for employees of Philippine Packing Corporation.
• The respondents also include Philippine Packing Corporation and Bugo Cannery & Stevedores Labor Union-UOEF No. 42.

Certification Election and Prior Orders

• A petition for a certification election was originally filed by employees of Philippine Packing Corporation on December 28, 1966.
• Respondent Judge initially ordered the holding of the certification election on January 10, 1969, based on a list of employees produced through payrolls (Exhibits "X-Court to X-41-Court") as of December 31, 1966.
• Following the January 10, 1969 order, motions for reconsideration were filed by the respondent company and union. They contested the list on the ground that it was based on outdated payrolls, arguing that changes had occurred in the employees’ roster—resignations, dismissals, and replacements—in the interval from December 31, 1966 to January 10, 1969.

Action by the Industrial Court en Banc

• The industrial court, during its en banc resolution of June 11, 1969, addressed these contentions by including additional payroll data.
• Specifically, the court ordered that the company’s payrolls as of December 31, 1968 should be used in addition to the 1966 payrolls (Exhibits "X-Court to X-41-Court") as the base for determining eligible voters.
• The court also rescinded an earlier order (from January 21, 1969) suspending the election and directed the Department of Labor to conduct the election accordingly.
• An appeal against this en banc resolution was sought by the respondent company through a petition for review (G.R. No. L-30948). However, the Supreme Court, in a resolution dated September 16, 1969, denied the petition for lack of merit, and the decision became final and executory on November 7, 1969.

Developments Leading to the Contested Order

• Pursuant to the industrial court’s order, the Department of Labor scheduled the certification election for February 20, 1970.
• On February 4, 1970, the respondent union filed a motion seeking the inclusion of approximately 110 additional alleged employees (whose names did not appear in either the 1966 or 1968 payrolls) and the exclusion of others whose names were present in the payrolls.
• Simultaneously, a motion to intervene was filed on behalf of 504 alleged employees who, despite not appearing in the base payrolls, claimed to have acquired “regular and permanent status.”
• The petitioner opposed these motions on the argument that they improperly attempted to reopen or modify an already conclusively decided matter—the industrial court’s en banc resolution that had fixed the bases for determining the eligible voters.

The Respondent Judge’s Order and Subsequent Actions

• On February 16, 1970, respondent Judge Tabigne, responding to the motion filed by the respondent union, cancelled the scheduled election of February 20, 1970 and suspended it indefinitely.
• He justified this by asserting that he could not resolve the newly filed motions alongside the petitioner's motion questioning his jurisdiction before the election date.
• The petition for certiorari and prohibition was then filed, and upon the filing, summons were issued on February 24, 1970.
• A writ of preliminary injunction was issued on March 17, 1970, which enjoined the respondent judge from proceeding with the hearing on the pending incidents set for March 24, 1970.
• The motion for intervention by the 504 alleged employees was re-submitted and later denied in subsequent court resolutions dated April 15 and May 20, 1970.

Issue:

Jurisdiction and Authority of the Respondent Judge

• Whether the respondent judge acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in cancelling the scheduled certification election of February 20, 1970 and suspending it indefinitely.
• Whether the respondent judge had the authority to entertain and rule on the belated motions submitted by the respondent union and the intervention of alleged employees when the issue of the eligible voters had already been conclusively decided by the final and executory industrial court’s en banc resolution of June 11, 1969.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)