Title
Benguet Consolidated, Inc. vs. Coto Labor Union
Case
G.R. No. L-17202
Decision Date
Apr 29, 1961
1956 labor dispute between Benguet Consolidated and Coto Labor Union; Supreme Court ruled CIR en banc decisions required, but single judge may receive evidence; formal pleadings unnecessary in certified cases.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-17202)

Facts:

  1. Dispute Origin: In 1956, a dispute arose between Benguet Consolidated, Inc. (petitioner) and Coto Labor Union (NLU) (respondent) regarding certain labor demands made by the union.

  2. Certification to Court of Industrial Relations (CIR): The Secretary of Labor failed to settle the dispute amicably and certified the case to the CIR, docketed as Case No. 1029-V. The presiding judge, Hon. Jose S. Bautista, took cognizance of the case.

  3. Motion to Dismiss: Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the case should be heard by the CIR en banc, not by a single judge, as it was endorsed under Section 16(c) of the Minimum Wage Law (Republic Act 602). The motion was denied by Judge Bautista, and the denial was affirmed by the CIR en banc.

  4. Supreme Court Decision (G.R. No. L-12394): Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court, which ruled on May 29, 1959, that cases endorsed by the Secretary of Labor involving minimum wage demands and actual strikes must be acted upon by the CIR en banc. However, the Court found the issue moot since Judge Bautista’s decision had already been affirmed by the CIR en banc.

  5. Post-Decision Proceedings: After the Supreme Court’s decision, the trial judge set the case for hearing on July 29, 1960. Six days before the hearing, petitioner discovered that no formal complaint or answer had been filed and moved for postponement, arguing that these pleadings were necessary to properly join the issues.

  6. Supplemental Motion: On July 26, 1960, petitioner filed a supplemental motion, reiterating that the case should be heard by the CIR en banc, not by a single judge. The motion was denied on July 27, 1960.

  7. Trial Proceeds: Despite petitioner’s urgent motion for reconsideration pending before the CIR en banc, Judge Bautista proceeded with the trial, stating that he would receive evidence as a representative of the court en banc.

Issue:

  1. Whether the case should be heard by a single judge or by the CIR en banc, as required under Section 16(c) of Republic Act 602.

  2. Whether the filing of a formal complaint and answer is necessary before proceeding with the trial.


Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the order of the CIR. The preliminary injunction issued by the Court was dissolved. The decision emphasized the importance of judicial efficiency and the proper interpretation of Section 16(c) of Republic Act 602.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.