Case Digest (G.R. No. L-6508)
Facts:
Koppel (Philippines) Inc. v. Tribunal de Relaciones Industriales and Koppel Employees Association, G.R. No. L-6508. April 25, 1955, the Supreme Court En Banc, Pablo, J., writing for the Court.The dispute arose from collective bargaining agreements between Koppel (Philippines) Inc. (petitioner) and the Koppel Employees Association (respondent). The parties entered into agreements dated October 18, 1948 (Annex A) and June 14, 1949 (Annex C), both approved by the Court of Industrial Relations, and these agreements were renewed year-to-year, the last covering October 19, 1951 to October 18, 1952. Clause 4 of the 1949 agreement provided that the parties "shall negotiate with each other within sixty days before the expiration ... of the present collective bargaining agreement for the succeeding collective bargaining agreement."
On September 3, 1952 the Association petitioned for a general wage increase. Management refused a general increase but gave raises to ten deserving employees; the Association persisted and, after further notice on September 18, 1952, its members declared a strike on September 22, 1952. Koppel (Philippines) Inc. petitioned the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) to declare the strike illegal. Presiding Commissioner Roldan initially declared the strike illegal; on the Association's motion for reconsideration, a majority of the CIR (Commissioner Jimenez Yanson, Commissioner Lanting and Judge Amparo) reversed and declared the strike legal, while Commissioners Roldan and Castillo dissented.
The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court seeking annulment of the CIR resolution that had declared the strike legal. The Supreme Court received the case as a certiorari proceeding ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the strike declared by the Koppel Employees Association on September 22, 1952 illegal for having been declared during the term of an existing collective bargaining agreement?
- Was Koppel (Philippines) Inc. deprived of due process because Judge Amparo allegedly "concurred pro forma" with the majority opinion when the motion for ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)