G.R. No. L-9446 - DECEMBER 1956 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-9446December 29, 1956 Luzon Brokerage Company vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-8809December 29, 1956 People of the Philippines vs. Damaso Quedes G.R. No. L-7637December 29, 1956 Inma Rohde Shotwell vs. Manila Motor Co. Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-6601-02December 29, 1956 In Re: Jose V. Ramirez Jose Eugenio Ramirez de la Cavada vs. Angela M. Butte A.M. No. 145December 28, 1956 Josefina Mortel vs. Anacleto F. Aspiras G.R. No. L-9152December 28, 1956 Josefina Mortel vs. Anacleto F. Aspiras, et al. G.R. No. L-8904-5December 28, 1956 People of the Philippines vs. Epifanio Manabat G.R. No. L-8409December 28, 1956 In Re: Andres Eusebio Eugenio Eusebio vs. Amanda Eusebio, et al. G.R. No. L-10583December 28, 1956 People of the Philippines vs. Adriano de la Cruz , et al. G.R. No. L-10033December 28, 1956 Benjamin Bugayong vs. Leonila Ginez G.R. No. L-9708December 27, 1956 Carmen D. de Cruz vs. Primitivo Gonzales, et al. G.R. No. L-9404December 27, 1956 Philippine Milling Company vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-8606December 27, 1956 In Re: Bibiana Olivete Heirs of Marciano Olivete vs. Rodrigo O. Mata G.R. No. L-9586December 27, 1956 Laguna Tayabas Bus Company vs. Felix T. Regodon G.R. No. L-9953December 26, 1956 Agustin Abulocion, et al. vs. Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Branch III, et al. G.R. No. L-9040December 26, 1956 Philippine Packing Corporation vs. Collector of Internal Revenue G.R. No. L-8699December 26, 1956 People of the Philippines vs. Lorenzo Ruzol, et al. G.R. No. L-8917December 24, 1956 People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto Natoza, et al. G.R. No. L-9672December 21, 1956 Vicenta Corpus, et al. vs. Jose A. V. Corpus, et al. G.R. No. L-9428December 21, 1956 Domingo R. Acasio vs. Corporacion delos PP. Dominicos de Filipinas G.R. No. L-9003December 21, 1956 Bacolod-Murcia Milling Company Inc., et al. vs. National Employee-Workers Security Union G.R. No. L-8871December 18, 1956 People of the Philippines vs. Eliseo Sawit G.R. No. L-10015December 18, 1956 People of the Philippines vs. Marita Ocampo y Pure G.R. No. L-10012December 17, 1956 Jose Gatmaitan, et al. vs. Director of Public Works, et al. G.R. No. L-9341December 14, 1956 Ramon Cheng Quioc Too vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-8706December 14, 1956 Philippine National Bank vs. Julian Teves G.R. No. L-8698December 14, 1956 Lucio Javillonar vs. National Planning Commission G.R. No. L-11023December 14, 1956 Alipio Sicat, et al. vs. Pastor P. Reyes, etc., et al. G.R. No. L-10662December 14, 1956 Roque Senarillos vs. Epifanio Hermosisima, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Luzon Brokerage Company vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Damaso Quedes Inma Rohde Shotwell vs. Manila Motor Co. Inc., et al. In Re: Jose V. Ramirez Jose Eugenio Ramirez de la Cavada vs. Angela M. Butte Josefina Mortel vs. Anacleto F. Aspiras Josefina Mortel vs. Anacleto F. Aspiras, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Epifanio Manabat In Re: Andres Eusebio Eugenio Eusebio vs. Amanda Eusebio, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Adriano de la Cruz , et al. Benjamin Bugayong vs. Leonila Ginez Carmen D. de Cruz vs. Primitivo Gonzales, et al. Philippine Milling Company vs. Court of Appeals, et al. In Re: Bibiana Olivete Heirs of Marciano Olivete vs. Rodrigo O. Mata Laguna Tayabas Bus Company vs. Felix T. Regodon Agustin Abulocion, et al. vs. Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Branch III, et al. Philippine Packing Corporation vs. Collector of Internal Revenue People of the Philippines vs. Lorenzo Ruzol, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto Natoza, et al. Vicenta Corpus, et al. vs. Jose A. V. Corpus, et al. Domingo R. Acasio vs. Corporacion delos PP. Dominicos de Filipinas Bacolod-Murcia Milling Company Inc., et al. vs. National Employee-Workers Security Union People of the Philippines vs. Eliseo Sawit People of the Philippines vs. Marita Ocampo y Pure Jose Gatmaitan, et al. vs. Director of Public Works, et al. Ramon Cheng Quioc Too vs. Republic of the Philippines Philippine National Bank vs. Julian Teves Lucio Javillonar vs. National Planning Commission Alipio Sicat, et al. vs. Pastor P. Reyes, etc., et al. Roque Senarillos vs. Epifanio Hermosisima, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-9446 December 29, 1956
LUZON BROKERAGE COMPANY,petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and LUZON LABOR UNION,respondents.
Pelaez and Jalandoni and Tiongson and San Luis for petitioner.
E. G. Maralit for respondent CIR.
Diokno and Sison for respondent Labor Union
PADILLA,J.:
This is a petition under Rule 67 for writ ofcertiorariwith preliminary injunction. Petitioner seeks to annul and set aside the order of the Court of Industrial Relations dated 1 June 1955 deferring action on the petitioner's motion to dismiss the complaint or demand for back pay filed by the respondents for lack of jurisdiction of the respondent court and to restrain it from proceeding with the determination of Case No. 397-V (7).
On 1 September 1955 a writ of preliminary injunction was issued restraining the respondent Court of Industrial Relations from proceeding with the case.
Petitioner avers that on that on 7 April 1951 an amended petition was filed by 425 members of the Luzon Labor Union with the Court of Industrial Relations alleging that at the outbreak of the pacific war in December 1941, at the instance of the Luzon Brokerage Company, the herein petitioner, they worked with the United States Army by hauling military equipment to Bataan; that some of them died during the war and were represented by their heirs; that sometime in 1945 the Company, on the promise to pay them four to five years back pay, induced some thirty chauffeurs to testify, as they did in fact testify, before the United States military authorities that the Company had 400 trucks commandeered by the United States Army; and that according to their information the Company was paid by the War Damage Commission for its trucks and other services related to the work of the claimants. They prayed that after hearing the Company be ordered to pay them back wages earned during the war in the respective amounts as computed by them.
On 5 May 1955 the Company filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that as the claim was purely and exclusively for sums of money allegedly owning to certain persons, "most of whom have already severed their connection with the Company," the Court of Industrial Relations had no jurisdiction over the subject matter. To abbreviate the proceedings and to avoid repeated presentation of the same evidence, on 1 June 1955 the Court deferred action on several motions filed by the Company including the motion to dismiss, on the ground that the motion alleged facts which should be established by competent evidence. A motion for reconsideration was denied.
Petitioner contends that the Court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss and that its taking cognizance of the case would be a waste of time because it had no jurisdiction to hear and decide it for lack of employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the respondents.
The petitioner admitted that some of the claimants for back pay were still under its employ when it averred in its motion to dismiss filed in the Court of Industrial Relations that ". . . this case is purely and exclusively a claim for sums of money supposedly owning to certain persons,mostof whom have long ago severed their connections with the Luzon Brokerage Company . . . (Annex C), thereby implying that some of them were still in its employ. And in its own memorandum filed in this Court the petitioner admits that "some of the claimants, not more than 60, have been employed anew by the petitioner." As there exists an employer-employee relation between the petitioner and the claimants for back pay even with respect only to some of them, and their claim for back pay is a potential source of dispute between management and labor, the respondent Court has jurisdiction to pass upon and decide the demand made by the respondents.
As the respondent Court has jurisdiction over the case, the order of 1 June 1955 deferring action on the petitioner's motion to dismiss is just interlocutary and can not be appealed.lawphil.net
The petition is denied and the writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issued discharged, with costs against the petitioner.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.