Case Digest (G.R. No. L-17202)
Facts:
The case involves Benguet Consolidated, Inc. as the petitioner and Coto Labor Union (NLU) as the respondent. The dispute originated in 1956 when the Coto Labor Union made certain demands to Benguet Consolidated, Inc. After the Secretary of Labor was unable to mediate the conflict, he referred the case to the Court of Industrial Relations, which was assigned as Case No. 1029-V, presided over by Judge Jose S. Bautista. Benguet Consolidated filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that it lacked jurisdiction because, under Section 16(c) of the Minimum Wage Law, the case should be heard by the court en banc rather than by a single judge. The motion was denied, and an appeal to the court en banc was also rejected. Subsequently, the petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court, which issued a decision on May 29, 1959, affirming that the case should indeed be handled by the court en banc. Following this, the trial judge scheduled a hearing for July 29, 1960. However, six d...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-17202)
Facts:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.