MANILA ORIENTAL SAWMILL CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

By -

MANILA ORIENTAL SAWMILL CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS      G.R. No. L-4330 (March 24, 1952)


FACTS:  On May 4, 1950, the United Employees Welfare Association, a union duly registered in the Department of Labor and with members among the employees of the petitioner, entered into an agreement of working conditions with the petitioner pursuant to a settlement concluded in case No. 173-V of the Court of Industrial Relations. The said agreement was to last for one year. On August 14, 1950, thirty-six of the thirty-seven members of the said United Employees Welfare Association tendered their resignations from the same union and joined the local chapter of the respondent National Labor Union. There is no evidence that these resignations were made with the approval of petitioner. On August 15, 1950, the president of the respondent union sent a letter to petitioner containing seven demands allegedly on behalf of the members of its local chapter who are employed by the petitioner, to which the latter, through its counsel, answered with another letter stating among other things that the laborers on whose behalf the letter of August 15, 1950, has been written were already affiliated with the United Employees Welfare Association. On August 22, 1950, the respondent union reiterated its demands. In reply, counsel for petitioner sent a letter stating that petitioner could not recognize the alleged local chapter of the respondent union until and after the agreement of May 4, 1950, entered into by the same employees concerned and petitioner is declared null and void by the Court of Industrial Relations. On August 28, 1950, the members of the respondent union struck. On August 31, 1950, petitioner filed a petition in the Court of Industrial Relations to declare the strike illegal. On Sept. 8,1950, the court, through its presiding judge, denied the petitioner’s prayer to declare the strike illegal. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration before the Court of Industrial Relations but the said motion was denied.

ISSUE: WON the order of the Court of Industrial Relations is null or void.


RULING: We find merit in this claim. The record shows that the local chapter of the respondent union is composed entirely, except one, of members who made up the total membership of the United Employees Welfare Association, a registered union in the petitioner’s company. To be exact, thirty-six of the thirty-seven members of said association tendered their resignations and joined the local chapter of the respondent union without first securing the approval of their resignations. The new Union then sought to present a seven-point demand of the very same employees to petitioner, which in many respects differs from their previous demand. It is evident that the purpose of their transfer is merely to disregard and circumvent the contract entered into between the same employees and the petitioner on May 4, 1950, knowing full well that that contract was effective for one year, and was entered into with the sanction of the Court of Industrial Relations. If this move were allowed the result would be a subversion of a contract freely entered into without any valid and justifiable reason. Such act cannot be sanctioned in law or in equity as it is in derogation of the principle underlying the freedom of contract and the good faith that should exist in contractual relations. A labor organization is wholesome if it serves its legitimate purpose of settling labor disputes. That is why it is given personality and recognition in concluding collective bargaining agreements. But if it is made use of as a subterfuge, or as a means to subvert valid commitments, it outlives its purpose for far from being an aid, it tends to undermine the harmonious relations between management and labor. Such is the move undertaken by the respondent union. Such a move cannot be considered lawful and cannot receive the sanction of the Court. Hence, the strike it has staged is illegal. WHEREFORE, the Order appealed from is reversed, without pronouncement as to costs.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Co vs Court of Appeals

By -
ALBINO S. CO,  petitioner,  vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,  respondents. G.R. No. 100776 October 28, 1993 Facts:                 In connection with an agreement to salvage and refloat asunken vessel — and in payment of his share of the expenses of the salvage operations therein stipulated — petitioner Albino Co delivered to the salvaging firm on September 1, 1983 a check drawn against the Associated Citizens' Bank, postdated November 30, 1983 in the sum of P361,528.00. The check was deposited on January 3, 1984. It was dishonored two days later, the tersely-stated reason given by the bank being: "CLOSED ACCOUNT."                 A criminal complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 2 was filed by the salvage company against Albino Co with the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City. The case eventuated in Co's conviction of the crime charged, and his being sentenced to suffer a term of imprisonment of sixty (60) days and to inde
Read more

GONZALES vs COMELEC [G.R. No. L-28196, November 9, 1967]

By -
FACTS: On March 16, 1967, the Senate and the House of Representatives passed resolutions No. 1, 2 and 3 – i.e. to increase the seats of the Lower House from 120 to 180; to convoke a Constitutional Convention of 1971; and to amend the Constitution (Section 16, Article VI) so they can become delegates themselves to the Convention.  Subsequently, Congress passed a bill, which, upon approval by the President, on June 17, 1967, became Republic Act No. 4913, providing that the amendments to the Constitution proposed in the aforementioned Resolutions No. 1 and 3 be submitted, for approval by the people, at the general elections which shall be held on November 14, 1967. Two cases were filed against this act of Congress:  One an is original action for prohibition, with preliminary injunction by Ramon A. Gonzales, in L-28196, a Filipino citizen, a taxpayer, and a voter. He claims to have instituted case L-28196 as a class unit, for and in behalf of all citizens, taxpayers, and voters simil
Read more

PNB vs CA & Gueco et al

By -
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK VS. COURT OF APPEALS,RITA GUECO TAPNIO,CECILIO GUECO and THE PHILIPPINE AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY FACTS: Mrs. Rita Gueco Tapnio was indebted to the Philippine National Bank at San Fernando,Pampanga for the total sum of P2,379.91.  Her indebtedness was a crop loan and was secured by the mortgage on her standing crap including her sugar quota allocation for the agricultural year corresponding to the said standing crop. During agricultural year 1956-1957 Mrs. Tapnio had an excess in her export sugar quota, 1000 piculs which she does not need. Mr. Jacobo Tuazon, a planter harvest less than his sugar quota. Mrs. Tapnio agreed to allow Mr. Tuazon to use her excess sugar quota for the consideration of P2,500.00.  Since the quota of Mrs. Tapnio was mortgaged to the PNB, the contract of lease that Mrs. Tapnio and Mr. Tuazon agreed into had to be approved by the bank. The branch manager required the parties to raise the consideration to P2,800.00 informing
Read more