Case Summary (G. R. No. 10114)
Factual Background and the Proceedings in the Court of Industrial Relations
The Court of Industrial Relations proceeded with the case after presidential certification. In the court below, Bisaya Land Transportation Co., Inc. asserted that the strike or abandonment was unlawful because no notice of the strike was served directly to it. It further argued that with the readmission of the radio operators, there was no longer any cause of action against the petitioner.
The Court of Industrial Relations ruled that the illegality of the strike was waived when Bisaya Land Transportation Co., Inc. accepted and reinstated the radio operators. On the matter of the alleged absence of cause of action, the court a quo held that the defense barred claims for reinstatement and backpay of the striking radio operators, but did not preclude the prosecution of the demands stated in the original petition filed by the union.
Issues Raised by the Petitioner
Bisaya Land Transportation Co., Inc. assigned six errors, namely: first, that it had no cause of action against it upon the return to work of the radio operators; second, that a craft union had no right or power to bargain collectively; third, that the union had no authority to bargain for radio operators Nadanza and Ouano because they were allegedly affiliated with another local union in Cebu, the Philippine Marine & Shipping Employees Association (PHILMASEA); fourth, that the strike or abandonment of their posts by the radio operators was not legal; fifth, that presidential certification was null and void because the strike had already occurred before certification; and sixth, that the Court of Industrial Relations had no jurisdiction over the case.
The Union’s Demands and the Effect of the Radio Operators’ Return
On the first assigned error, Bisaya Land Transportation Co., Inc. contended that when its radio operators returned to work and the company reinstated them, any grounds for striking were waived. The Court rejected the contention. It held that the strike had been adopted by the union as a means to compel the respondent shipping company to accede to the union’s demands. The radio operators’ return to work was treated as a desistance from the strike, characterized as a personal act of the strikers. As such, the Court ruled that the return could not be interpreted as a waiver by the union of the original demands that had impelled the strike.
Recognition of Craft Unions and the Right to Bargain Collectively
The Court also denied the second assigned error. It reasoned that a craft union, such as the union to which the radio operators belonged, was expressly recognized in the Industrial Peace Act, citing Sec. 9 [f], pars. 1 and 2, Rep. Act No. 875. The Court ruled that the Industrial Peace Act recognizes the craft union’s right and power to bargain collectively.
Authority of the Union Despite Alleged Affiliation With Another Local Union
The Court likewise rejected the third assigned error. Bisaya Land Transportation Co., Inc. argued that PHILMAROA had no authority to bargain collectively for radio operators Nadanza and Ouano because the latter were affiliated with PHILMASEA, with which most of Bisaya Land Transportation Co., Inc.’s employees were affiliated. The Court held that PHILMAROA acted as representatives of Nadanza and Ouano as radio operators, not merely as generic employees of Bisaya Land Transportation Co., Inc. The Court further found that the law imposed no prohibition against employees affiliating with a craft union and an ordinary labor union. Accordingly, because PHILMAROA represented the interest of Nadanza and Ouano in their capacity as radio operators, it was competent to represent them in the proceedings in that capacity.
Waiver of Any Alleged Illegality of the Strike by Reinstatement
As to the fourth assigned error, the petitioner maintained that the strike was illegal. The Court noted the petitioner’s argument assuming, for the sake of argument, that the strike was illegal for being premature. It ruled that this defense had been waived by Bisaya Land Transportation Co., Inc. when it voluntarily agreed to reinstate the radio operators. Thus, even if illegality were assumed, the company’s reinstatement conduct foreclosed reliance on that defense.
Presidential Certification and the Claim of Nullity
In addressing the fifth assigned error, Bisaya Land Transportation Co., Inc. challenged the validity of the presidential certification, arguing that certification’s purpose was to avoid or prevent strikes and lockouts and that certification was therefore null and void because the strike had already occurred before certification.
The Court held that the contention lacked basis. It ruled that there was no reason to limit presidential certification to the prevention of strikes and lockouts. It explained tha
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G. R. No. 10114)
- The case involved an appeal by certiorari filed by BISAYA LAND TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. against a decision of the Court of Industrial Relations in CIIR case No. 4-IPA.
- The antecedent proceeding in the Court of Industrial Relations had been “Philippine Marine Radio Officers’ Association vs. Compafifa Maritima, et al.”, as referenced in the decision.
- The Court treated the matter as intimately related to G. R. No. L-10095 and G. R. No. L-10115, which the Court had already resolved in a decision promulgated on October 31, 1957.
- The Court addressed the merits of the union demands and the alleged procedural and jurisdictional infirmities raised by the petitioner.
Parties and Procedural Posture
- BISAYA LAND TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. appeared as the petitioner-appellant and invoked review of the Court of Industrial Relations decision via Rule 65-type certiorari review, as described by the text as “appeal by certiorari.”
- The Court of Industrial Relations had issued the assailed resolution in the industrial dispute brought before it.
- The principal respondent in the appellate proceeding was COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, with PHILIPPINE MARINE RADIO OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION likewise named as respondent.
- The appellate review centered on six assigned errors, all directed at the Court of Industrial Relations’ treatment of cause of action, collective bargaining authority, union representation, strike legality, presidential certification, and jurisdiction.
Key Factual Allegations
- The PHILMAROA presented demands for standardization and increase of salaries, sick and vacation leaves, hospitalization, and a closed shop agreement on September 26, 1953.
- On October 24, 1953, a notice of intention to strike was filed in the Conciliation Service Division of the Department of Labor against the petitioners.
- While the dispute was pending resolution in the Court of Industrial Relations, the President issued a presidential certification to the Court of Industrial Relations.
- During the pendency of the dispute under presidential certification, Benjamin Nadanza and Arcadio Ouano abandoned their ships on November 30, 1953 and December 7, 1953, respectively.
- After some weeks, Nadanza and Ouano returned and, upon request, were re-admitted by the company.
- In the court below, the petitioner argued that the strike was unlawful because no notice of strike was served directly to it.
- The petitioner further argued that, due to reinstatement, there was no longer any cause of action against the petitioner.
- The Court of Industrial Relations found that the alleged illegality was waived by the petitioner’s acceptance of the striking radio operators.
- The Court of Industrial Relations also ruled that the absence-of-cause-of-action defense was effective against reinstatement and backpay, but not against the prosecution of the demands raised in the union’s original petition.
Assigned Errors on Appeal
- The petitioner assigned as error that it had no cause of action against Bisaya Land Transportation Co., Inc.
- The petitioner contended that the union, as a craft union, had no right or power to bargain collectively.
- The petitioner argued that the union had no right to bargain collectively for radio operators Nadanza and Ouano because they were affiliated with another local labor union in Cebu, namely the PHILIPPINE MARINE & SHIPPING EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PHILMASEA), with which most employees of the petitioner were affiliated.
- The petitioner claimed the strike or abandonment by the radio operators was not legal.
- The petitioner argued that the presidential certification of the case to the Court of Industrial Relations was null and void.
- The petitioner asserted that the Court of Industrial Relations had no jurisdiction over the case.
Waiver Through Reinstatement
- The petitioner claimed that reinstatement after the o