Case Digest (G.R. No. 47138)
Facts:
Manila Chauffeurs' League v. Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., G.R. No. 47138, June 17, 1940, the Supreme Court En Banc, Concepcion, J., writing for the Court.
The petitioner is Manila Chauffeurs' League (recurrent); the respondent is Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. (recurrent).
A prior labor dispute between the parties was submitted to the Tribunal of Industrial Relations (TIR). While that case was pending, the parties executed a written agreement dated August 22, 1938, which they presented to the TIR. The TIR ordered the agreement to be attached to the file pursuant to Article 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 103, and declared the agreement to have the effect of a decision in the case. Paragraph XIII(2) of that agreement obligated the League to cooperate with the company's administration by furnishing enough drivers so that at least eighty percent of registered auto-calesas would be in operation daily and required the Association to ensure its members render regular and efficient service, subject to limited exceptions (e.g., severe weather).
About a year later the League's new president sent a letter to Mrs. Mary McDonald Bachrach proposing that the League should "instantly enjoy the right to furnish all such auto-calesa drivers as are or may be needed by the Company" and that the Company not employ any driver who was not a League member without first consulting the League. The Company refused, asserting the agreement merely contemplated that the League supply drivers but reserved to the Company the right to choose the best drivers, whether from the League or outsiders.
On August 8, 1939, the League moved before the TIR asking, among other relief, that the TIR (a) order the Company to reinstate certain League-affiliated drivers who had been summarily dismissed or suspended except for causes expressly approved in the TIR's September 2, 1938 decision, and (b) declare that assignment and replacement of drivers for each auto-calesa be left exclusively to the League president.
By orders dated October 13, 1939, the TIR denied the League's request to amend the agreement to confer exclusive hiring rights on the League, holding the proposed amendment was not within the essence of the agreement and that the TIR lacked authority to grant it. In a separate order of the same date the TIR found that driver Gonzalo Saldana was dismissed for just cause and that his dismissal did not violate the collective agreement; the TIR also denied a contempt motion by the League seeking Saldana's reinstatement. The League's motion for reconsideration was denied by TIR resolution dated December 4, 1939.
The League filed the present petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court to annul the T...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the Manila Chauffeurs' League have the contractual right to require Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. to fill all vacancies and new driver positions exclusively with drivers proposed by the League?
- Was the dismissal of driver Gonzalo Saldana by Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. lawful ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)