G.R. No. L-23294




Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-23294 April 30, 1966 NAMARCO EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS ASSOCIATION, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE JUDGE EMILIANO TABIGNE OF THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and THE NATIONAL MARKETING CORPORATION, respondents. Jose C. Espinas and Associates for petitioner. Government Corporate Counsel Tomas P. Matic, Jr., Assistant Government Corporate Counsel Lorenzo R. Mosqueda and Trial Attorney Manuel M. Lazaro for respondents. REYES, J.B.L., J.: This is a petition for certiorari with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction filed originally with this Court by petitioner Namarco Employees and Workers Association, hereinafter referred to as NEWA for short, to restrain respondent Associate Judge, Hon. Emiliano C. Tabigne, of the Court of Industrial Relations from enforcing his second and temporary restraining order dated August 3, 1964, issued in its CIR Case No. 149-Inj., at the instance of private respondent National Marketing Corporation, hereinafter referred to as NAMARCO. This Court gave due course to the petition and required respondents to answer; however, it did not issue the preliminary injunction prayed for. As disclosed by the record, the facts are: On July 8, 1964, herein petitioner NEWA declared a strike against respondent NAMARCO and established picket lines along the premises of the principal office and business establishment of the latter, located at Muelle de la Industria, Binondo, Manila. On July 16, 1964, NAMARCO filed a charge for unfair labor practice against NEWA before the Industrial Court, alleging illegality of the strike staged by the latter. This charged was docketed as CIR Case No. 8-ULP (Annex "B", respondent NAMARCO's answer, record, pp. 59-61). On the same date, NAMARCO also filed, in accordance with Section 9(d) of Republic Act No. 875, a verified urgent ex-parte petition for injunction to restrain and enjoin NEWA and its union members from committing alleged acts of coercion and intimidation in connection with the conduct of said strike. This petition was docketed as CIR Case No. 149-Inj. (Annex "A", NEWA's petition; record, pp. 11-15), for which the corresponding summons was served on NEWA on July 21, 1964 Annex "B", NEWA's petition; record, p. 16). On July 24, 1964, NEWA answered said petition (Annex "D", NEWA's petition; record, pp. 27-30). In the meantime, the Prosecution Division of the Industrial Court conducted a preliminary investigation of the unfair labor practice charge, docketed as CIR Case No. 8-ULP; and on July 18, 1964, its acting Chief Prosecutor presented a complaint for unfair labor practice against NEWA before the Industrial Court, which was docketed as CIR Case No. 4257-ULP (Annex "C", NAMARCO's answer; record, pp. 62-66). Summons on this complaint was served on NEWA on August 5, 1964 (Annex "1", petitioner NEWA's memorandum; record, p. 83). After an ex parte hearing and reception of evidence on the petition for injunction, docketed as CIR Case No. 149-Inj., respondent Judge issued, on July 20, 1964, his first restraining order enjoining NEWA and its union members from committing certain acts specified in said order to be effective only for five (5) days from notice to NEWA, and which order was actually received by the latter on July 22, 1964 (Annex "C", NEWA's petition; record, pp. 17-26). NEWA did not question the validity or propriety of the issuance of the foregoing restraining order. On July 30, 1964, NAMARCO filed its second verified urgent ex parte petition for the issuance of another restraining order, alleging, among other things, that on the fifth day of effectivity of the first restraining order and in open defiance and disobedience of the authority of the Industrial Court, NEWA, its union members and sympathizers, unlawfully and illegally, prevented the enforcement of said order thereby rendering it nugatory and ineffective. Respondent Judge heard this second petition and allowed NAMARCO to present its evidence ex parte in support thereof; and on August 3, 1964, he issued the second restraining order, to be effective only for five (5) days from receipt by NEWA, notice of which (order) NEWA received on the same day (Annex "E", NEWA's petition; record, pp. 31-39). The day following, August 4, 1964, NEWA resorted to this Court on a petition for certiorari questioning the validity of hte issuance of the second restraining order. Two reasons constrain Us to deny the present petition for certiorari without considering its merits. First, it is wel settled that only an award, order or decision of the CIR in banc, and not that of its Juges, is appealable to this Court (Broce vs. CIR, G.R. No. L-12367, October 28, 1959; 56 O.G. 7445). Petitioner, therefore, should have restorted first to the Court of Industrial Relations in banc before coming to this Court. While, under its rules, a motion for reconsideration to the full court requires a period for the opposing party's answer before the motion may be acted upon, there is no law prohibiting or divesting the CIR in banc from exercising in the meantime, and upon proper application, the power to stay or suspend the enforcement of any order, ruling or decision of any of its trial judges, pending resolution of the motion to reconsider, where such stay imperative to prevent reconsideration from becoming nugatory. This power is implied in the right of the Industrial Court in banc to affirm, alter, modify or reverse the orders, rulings or decisions of any of its trial judges (Sec. 20, Com. Act No. 103, as amended; Connell Bros. Co. [Phil.] vs. NLU, G.R. No. L-3631, June 30, 1956; Luzon Stevedoring co., Inc., vs. Luzon Marine Department Union, G.R. No. L-9665, April 29, 1957 ). On this score, failure to prsent a motion to reconsider before the CIR in banc is fatal to the instant petition.1äwphï1.ñët Second, the petition should be denied because the dispute has already become moot and academic, it appearing that, on September 4, 1964 (after the case was filed here), the parties entered into a return-to-work agreement (Annex "A", respondent NAMARCO's memorandum; record, pp. 99-100), thereby ending the strike from which these incidents arose, Wherefore, the present petition for certiorari should be, as it is hereby, dismissed. With costs againsts petitioner NEWA. Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, J.P. Bengzon, Zaldivar and Sanches, JJ., concur. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation