Case Summary (G.R. No. L-7493)
Factual Background
On January 27, 1954, the STORE filed in the Court of Industrial Relations a petition praying that a certification election be ordered to determine which, between the NATIONAL LABOR and the INTER-ISLAND UNION, should serve as the exclusive bargaining representative of the STORE’s employees.
After that filing, twenty-three days later, the STORE brought an action for mandamus. It alleged that, since the filing of its certification election petition, no action had been taken by Branch II of the Court of Industrial Relations, and that the respondent judge had “countenanced the repeated postponement and dilatory tactics” used by the respondent labor unions. The STORE also prayed for damages on the allegation that the alleged dilatory tactics prevented it from negotiating employment terms, particularly concerning the separation of employees hired for the Christmas season, and that the STORE was sustaining losses of P300.00 a day.
Court Proceedings and Development of the Record
The Court noted that, based on the answer and supporting papers submitted by the respondents, action had been taken soon after the petition was docketed. Summons were issued to the parties, and an early hearing date was set. Hearings were held on February 4 and February 10.
The Court further recorded that the proceedings were interrupted following a motion to dismiss filed by the NATIONAL LABOR. That motion was grounded on the contention that there was then a pending case for unfair labor practice against the STORE, and that resolution of that matter was essential to a free expression of the will of the employees who would vote in the certification election. The Court stated that the motion to dismiss was denied on February 27.
However, on March 8, the NATIONAL LABOR filed a motion for reconsideration, followed by a supporting memorandum. While that motion was pending and not yet resolved, the Court held that the respondent judge was “naturally inhibited” from acting on the case because the reconsideration pertained to the order to dismiss and the resolution of the motion would devolve upon the court in banc.
The Court added that, during the mandamus hearing in court, no one appeared for the plaintiff, and the STORE’s allegations of non-action by the respondent judge and of dilatory tactics by the respondent unions were not proved. In contrast, the Court observed that the respondent judge acted with dispatch up to the point when the matter was temporarily taken out of his hands by the NATIONAL LABOR’s motion for reconsideration, the resolution of which belonged to the court in banc.
Mandamus Allegations Assessed by the Court
The STORE’s claim that, since the filing of its petition, the respondent judge had taken no action was described by the Court as clearly unfounded. The Court rejected the asserted premise of inaction, emphasizing the hearings that were held shortly after docketing and the procedural events that then caused delay attributable to pending motions rather than to any neglect or refusal to act by the respondent judge.
The Court also addressed an additional point brought up in the NATIONAL LABOR’s memorandum. It stated that the hearing of the STORE’s certification election petition had been ordered suspended by the court in banc pending resolution of a complaint filed by the NATIONAL LABOR charging the STORE with having “assisted and dominated” the formation and administration of a branch of the INTER-ISLAND Dockmen and Labor Union among its workers, allegedly in violation of Section 4(a) of Republic Act No. 875.
The Parties’ Positions
The STORE maintained that mandamus should issue because the respondent judge allegedly failed to rule on its certification election petition and because the respondent unions allegedly employed postponements and dilatory tactics that delayed negotiations and caused financial losses.
The respondents countered by showing that the petition had been docketed with procedural steps taken promptly, including the issuance of summons and the holding of hearings. They also pointed to the motion practice by the NATIONAL LABOR, including the motion to dismiss and the subsequent motion for reconsideration, as well as the later in banc suspension of the certification election hearing pending resolution of an unfair labor practice complaint.
Legal Basis and Reasoning
The Court treated the mandamus action as lac
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-7493)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- THE SCOTY'S DEPARTMENT STORE (the STORE) petitioned the Court of Industrial Relations seeking an order for a certification election.
- The certification election would determine whether, as between the National Labor Union and the Inter-Island Dockmen and Labor Union, one union would serve as the exclusive bargaining representative of the STORE’s employees.
- After the STORE filed its petition on January 27, 1954, the STORE later instituted an action for mandamus in the Court.
- The respondents named were the Hon. Modesto Castillo, the National Labor Union, and the Inter-Island Dockmen and Labor Union.
- The case reached the Supreme Court on review of the STORE’s mandamus action.
Key Factual Allegations
- The mandamus petition alleged that, after the filing of the certification-election petition, Branch II of the Court of Industrial Relations took no action on the petition.
- The mandamus petition further alleged that Judge Modesto Castillo “countenanced” repeated postponement and dilatory tactics allegedly used by the respondent labor unions.
- The STORE also alleged that the unions’ dilatory tactics prevented it from negotiating employment terms.
- The STORE specifically linked the alleged delay to negotiations on the separation of employees hired for the Christmas season only.
- The STORE claimed continuing losses in the sum of P300.00 a day.
- The STORE also prayed for damages against the labor unions in addition to an order requiring Judge Castillo to rule on the certification-election petition.
Proceedings in the Court of Industrial Relations
- The record showed that once the certification-election petition was docketed, summons were issued and an early hearing date was set.
- Hearings were conducted on February 4 and February 10.
- The hearing was interrupted due to a motion to dismiss filed by the National Labor Union.
- The motion to dismiss was grounded on the existence of a pending unfair labor practice case against the STORE, which the National Labor Union asserted was essential to enable a free expression of voters’ will in the certification election.
- The trial court denied the motion to dismiss on February 27.
- After denial, the National Labor Union filed a motion for reconsideration on March 8, accompanied by a supporting memorandum.
- While the motion for reconsideration was pending, the respondent judge was “naturally inhibited” from acting on the case pending resolution by the court in banc.
- At the hearing on the mandamus action before the Court, no one appeared for the plaintiff.
- The Court held that the STORE’s charge of inaction and its allegations of dilatory tactics by the labor unions were not proved.
- The Court found, in contrast, that Judge Castillo acted with dispatch by having the case heard until it was temporarily taken out of his hands due to the National Labor Union’s motion for recon