Case Digest: Allied Free Workers Union v. Apostol, G.R. No. L-8876, October 31, 1957
- Compañia Maritima, Iligan Branch, had an "arrastre and stevedoring contract" with the Allied Free Workers’ Union from August 11, 1952.
- The contract expired on September 12, 1952, but the union continued services until August 24, 1954. The company then terminated the contract and engaged Iligan Stevedoring Association.
- The union filed charges of unfair labor practice and engaged in picketing, obstructing the company's operations.
- The company filed a case seeking to enjoin the union's interference.
- CFI-Lanao: Issued an ex parte preliminary injunction.
- The union contested the court's jurisdiction, arguing it belonged to the Court of Industrial Relations due to a labor dispute.
The first question should be answered in the affirmative, considering our finding that the trial court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case, but we hold nevertheless that the injunction issued by it is void because the procedure laid down by section 9 (d) of Republic Act 875 was not followed in its issuance. The instant case, being an outgrowth of a labor dispute arising from the picketing of the premises of respondent company by the members of petitioning union, the trial court cannot grant the injunction merely ex parte under section 6, Rule 60 of the Rules of Court, but must follow what is provided for in Republic Act No. 875. Thus, in the same case of Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU), Et. Al. v. Hon. Bienvenido Tan, Et Al., supra, we said:
"We believe however that in order that an injunction may be properly issued the procedure laid down in section 9 (d) of Republic Act 875 should be followed and cannot be granted ex parte as allowed by Rule 60, section 6, of the Rules of Court. The reason is that the case, involving as it does a labor dispute, comes under said section 9 (d) of the law. That procedure requires that there should be a hearing at which the parties should be given an opportunity to present witnesses in support of the complaint and of the opposition, if any, with opportunity for cross examination, and that the other conditions required by said section as prerequisites for the granting of relief must be established and stated in the order of the court. Unless this procedure is followed, the proceedings would be invalid and of no effect. The court would then be acting in excess of its jurisdiction. (Lauf v. E. G. Shinner Co., Inc., supra)."
Moreover, under Section 9 (d) of Republic Act No. 875, an injunction ex parte can be issued only "upon testimony under oath, sufficient, if sustained, to justify the court in issuing a temporary injunction upon hearing after notice." In other words, even if the court can grant an injunction ex parte, there is still need of a hearing wherein the sworn testimony of the applicant should be received, although the writ "shall be effective for no longer than five days and shall be void at the expiration of said five days." The injunction in question, having been issued ex parte, without notice and without hearing, the same is void and without effect (Apolonia Reyes, Et. Al. v. Hon. Bienvenido Tan, Et Al., 99 Phil., 880; 52 Off. Gaz., [14] 6187).
Comments
Post a Comment