Title
Asejo vs. Chua Joy
Case
G.R. No. 19373
Decision Date
Jul 29, 1967
Crew members challenged a closed shop clause in a CBA after joining a rival union; Supreme Court dismissed the case as moot due to a pending certification election.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 256091)

Collective Bargaining Agreement and Union Conflict

The original collective bargaining agreement included a closed shop clause, which stipulated that only members of the United Seamen’s Union could be employed. Despite being members of the United Seamen’s Union, the petitioners chose to affiliate with a rival organization, the General Maritime Stevedores Union of the Philippines. This affiliation led them to file a petition for a certification election on April 30, 1958, with the Court of Industrial Relations to ascertain which union would rightfully represent the unlicensed crew members.

Termination Notice and Legal Action

Following the filing of the certification election petition, the United Seamen’s Union demanded the termination of the petitioners' employment, citing the closed shop agreement. This demand resulted in the petitioners seeking declaratory relief and a preliminary injunction from the Court of First Instance of Manila to invalidate the relevant provision of the closed shop agreement. The court granted the injunction on July 25, 1958, preventing the respondents from terminating the petitioners.

Court Rulings and Permanent Injunction

After a trial, the Court of First Instance issued a permanent injunction on February 6, 1959, confirming the petitioners' employment status. The case was subsequently appealed to a higher court. In the interim, the petition for certification election filed in the Court of Industrial Relations was dismissed on grounds that an existing collective bargaining agreement was still in effect with the United Seamen's Union.

Dismissal of the Petition

An appeal against the dismissal of the certification election (G. R. No. L-14689) was resolved on July 26, 1960, directing a certification election to determine the appropriate bargaining representative for the employees. Subsequently, on April 25, 1967, the court addressed the current case, indicating that the issues may have become moo

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.