Case Digest (G.R. No. L-7493)
Facts:
The Scoty's Department Store v. The Hon. Modesto Castillo, et al., G.R. No. L-7493, May 17, 1955, the Supreme Court En Banc, Reyes, A., J., writing for the Court.On January 27, 1954, Scoty's Department Store (the STORE) filed a petition with the Court of Industrial Relations seeking a certification election to determine whether the National Labor Union or the Inter-Island Dockmen and Labor Union would be the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees. Twenty-three days later the STORE filed a petition for mandamus against Hon. Modesto Castillo, Judge of Branch II of the Court of Industrial Relations, alleging that since the filing of the certification petition no action had been taken by him and that he had “countenanced the repeated postponement and dilatory tactics” of the respondent labor unions.
The STORE also sought damages from the respondent unions, alleging that the alleged delay prevented negotiation with employees over terms of employment (including separation of seasonal hires) and caused daily losses of P300. Respondents answered and submitted papers showing that, after the certification petition was docketed, summonses were issued and hearings were set and in fact held on February 4 and 10. Those hearings were interrupted by a motion to dismiss filed by the National Labor on the ground that an unfair labor practice case, then pending against the STORE, was a matter essential to a free expression of the employees’ will in a certification election.
The trial judge denied the motion to dismiss on February 27. On March 8 the National Labor filed a motion for reconsideration with a supporting memorandum. Pending resolution of that motion by the Court in Banc the judge was necessarily inhibited from further action. The record also shows that the Court in Banc ordered the suspension of the certification hearing pending resolution of a complaint alleging that the STORE had “assisted and dominated in the formation and administration of the branch of the Inter-Island Dockmen and Labor Union” in violation of Section 4(a) of Republic Act No. 875.
At the hearing before the Supreme Court, no one appeared for the STORE and the allegations of inaction by Judge Castillo and of dilatory tactics by the unions were not established. The Court found the charge of inaction unfounded an...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is mandamus proper to compel Judge Modesto Castillo to rule on the STORE’s petition for a certification election?
- Were the unions’ motions and the Court in Banc’s suspension of the certification hearing a sufficient and lawful reason for the judge’s te...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)