Case Summary (G.R. No. L-19785)
Key Dates
- May 15, 1962: The Company filed a complaint against the Union for obtaining a preliminary injunction.
- May 18, 1962: The Court granted the writ of preliminary injunction.
- May 3, 1962: The Union declared a strike.
- May 30, 1962: The Union and the Company entered into the “Return to Work Agreement.”
Background and Nature of Dispute
The legal conflict arose when the Company sought a writ of preliminary injunction to prevent the Union from obstructing its operations and coercing non-striking employees. The Union challenged the jurisdiction of the Court, asserting that the matter pertained to a labor dispute and did not warrant judicial intervention, especially given the historical context of labor relations in this case.
Court Proceedings and Evidence Presented
During the hearings, Mr. H.B. Reyes, representing the Company, testified about the difficult circumstances surrounding the strike, including violent actions by Union members that hindered the Company's operations. The testimony outlined incidents where non-striking employees faced intimidation while attempting to perform their duties, and significant threats were posed to the safety and functionality of the power plants. Incidents of violence included a Union member allegedly attacking a non-striking employee with a shotgun and instances where essential infrastructure was damaged.
Response from the Union
The Union initially moved to reconsider the Court's order granting the preliminary injunction but later withdrew this motion. Instead, the Union filed a petition for certiorari, seeking a review of the injunction while requesting a preliminary injunction against it.
Settlement and Mootness of the Case
Subsequent to the filing of the certiorari petition, the parties reached a settlement on May 30, 1962, which resolved the underlying labor dispute, thereby ending the strike and picketing. The settlement included a "no-strike and no-lockout" agreement, which caused the Company to file a motion to dismiss the petition on grounds of mootness, as the issues were no longer justiciable.
Court's Ruling on Dismissal
The Court found merit in the Company's motion to dismiss, stating that the issues had become moot because the acts enjoined by the preliminary injunction no longer existed. The Court emphasized the legal principle that it does not address moot questions or propositions where no practical relief can be provided.
Claim for Damages by the Union
The Union's argument against the dismissal hinged on its claim for damages resulting from what it deemed the improper issuance of the injunction. However, the Court ruled that the injunction was appropriately directed against acts of v
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-19785)
Case Citation and Date
- Citation: 125 Phil. 590
- G.R. No. L-19785
- Date: January 30, 1967
Parties Involved
- Petitioner: Meralco Workers Union (the Union)
- Respondents:
- Honorable Nicasio Yatco, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City
- Manila Electric Company (the Company)
Factual Background
- On May 15, 1962, the Company filed a complaint against the Union in the Court of First Instance of Quezon City, seeking a writ of preliminary injunction.
- The injunction aimed to restrain the Union from obstructing, stopping, or intimidating non-striking employees and executives from entering Company facilities.
- The Union opposed the injunction, citing lack of jurisdiction due to the matter being a labor dispute.
Court Proceedings and Testimonies
- A hearing took place on May 17, 1962, where Mr. H.B. Reyes testified as the Company's sole witness.
- Mr. Reyes was the Vice President and legal counsel for the Company, responsible for labor relations.
- He detailed the negotiation history with the Union regarding a collective bargaining agreement that expired on December 31, 1961.
- Negotiations began in October 1961, with multiple meetings held until April 2, 1962, w