G.R. No. L-17378 - APRIL 1962 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-17378April 30, 1962 Northwest Airlines, Inc. vs. Northwest Airlines Philippines Employees Association, et al. G.R. No. L-17082April 30, 1962 Mercedes Raffiñan vs. Felipe L. Abel G.R. No. L-16843April 30, 1962 Gonzalo Puyat and Sons, Inc. vs. Philippine National Bank G.R. No. L-10909April 30, 1962 Adelaida Tabotabo vs. Aguedo Tabotabo, et al. G.R. No. L-18751April 28, 1962 A.C. Esguerra and Sons vs. Dominador R. Aytona, et al. G.R. No. L-17887April 28, 1962 People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo Santos G.R. No. L-17481April 28, 1962 Liberata Antonio Estrada, et al. vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-17247April 28, 1962 C.N. Hodges vs. Elpidio Javellana, et al. G.R. No. L-17047April 28, 1962 Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co. vs. Manila Port Terminal, et al. G.R. No. L-17044April 28, 1962 Eustaquio Juan ,et al. vs. Vicenta Zuñiga, et al. G.R. No. L-16804April 28, 1962 Franco J. Altomonte vs. Philippine-American Drug Co. G.R. No. L-16716April 28, 1962 Pedro R. Jao, et al. vs. Royal Financing Corp., et al. G.R. No. L-16219April 28, 1962 Natividad Vernus-Sanciangco vs. Diosdado Sanciangco, et al. G.R. No. L-16172April 28, 1962 Arsenio Sumilang vs. Gualberto Castillo, et al. G.R. No. L-16005April 28, 1962 Manila Electric Co. vs. Public Service Commission G.R. No. L-15338April 28, 1962 Caltex Employees Association-PAFLU vs. Antonio Lucero, et al. G.R. No. L-15089April 28, 1962 Teodulo Dominguez, et al. vs. Roman B. de Jesus, et al. G.R. No. L-14833April 28, 1962 Oromeca Lumber Co., Inc. vs. Social Security Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-14546-47April 28, 1962 People of the Philippines vs. Basilio Padua, et al. G.R. No. L-14320April 28, 1962 Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Finley J. Gibbs, et al. G.R. No. L-14231April 28, 1962 Catalino Balbecino, et al. vs. Wenceslao M. Ortega, et al. G.R. No. L-14166April 28, 1962 Finley J. Gibbs, et al. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, et al. G.R. No. L-12570April 28, 1962 Vicente Paz, etc., etc al. vs. Court of Agrarian relations, et al. G.R. No. L-12116April 28, 1962 Macaria de Domingo vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-11964April 28, 1962 Register of Deeds of Manila vs. China Banking Corp. G.R. No. L-16467April 27, 1962 Florentina Mata de Stuart vs. Nicasio Yatco G.R. No. L-15265April 27, 1962 Bacolod Gold Mining Co. vs. Benjamin Tabisola, et al. G.R. No. L-17325April 26, 1962 Republic of the Philippines vs. Xavier Gun Trading, et al. G.R. No. L-16594April 26, 1962 Republic of the Philippines vs. Tomas Dorego, et al. G.R. No. L-16384April 26, 1962 In re: Go chang Jayme S. Tan vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-15638April 26, 1962 In re: Francisco F. Gonzales IV Hermogenes Concepcion, Jr. vs. Francisco F. Gonzales IV G.R. No. L-15427April 26, 1962 San Miguel Brewery, Inc. vs. Elpidio, et al. G.R. No. L-15369April 26, 1962 People of the Philippines vs. Timoteo Cruz, et al. G.R. No. L-14455April 26, 1962 Lino Gutierrez vs. Lucaino L. Medel, et al. G.R. No. L-12174April 26, 1962 Maria B. Castro vs. Collector of Internal Revenue G.R. No. L-17016April 25, 1962 Worldwide Paper Mills, Inc. vs. Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-16997April 25, 1962 Ramcar Inc. vs. Domingo Garcia G.R. No. L-16954April 25, 1962 Arminio Rivera vs. Litam and Co., et al. G.R. No. L-16856April 25, 1962 Olivio G. Ruiz vs. Cedar V. Pastor G.R. No. L-16066April 25, 1962 Encarnacion Bacani, et al. vs. Felicisima Paz Samia Galauran, et al. G.R. No. L-15404April 25, 1962 Ildefonso Suzara vs. Hermogenes Caluag, et al. G.R. No. L-15080April 25, 1962 In re: Norma Lee Caber Ricardo R. Caraballo vs. Republic G.R. No. L-14591April 25, 1962 Pindañgan Agricultural Company, Inc. vs. Jose P. Dans, et al. G.R. No. L-14530April 25, 1962 Leona Aglibot, et al. vs. Andrea Acay Mañalac, et al. G.R. No. L-13918April 25, 1962 Caltex (Philippines), Inc. vs. katipunan Labor Union G.R. No. L-12219April 25, 1962 Francisco Pascual vs. Commission Customs A.C. No. 518April 23, 1962 Dominador Carlos vs. Benigno Palaganas, et al. G.R. No. L-17349April 23, 1962 National Shipyards and Steel Corp. vs. Martin Artoz, et al. G.R. No. L-17344April 23, 1962 Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. Nos. L-16665 & L-16666April 23, 1962 People of the Philippines vs. Ireneo Santella, et al. G.R. No. L-15892April 23, 1962 Fernando Lacson, et al. vs. Bacolod City, et al. G.R. No. L-15778April 23, 1962 Tan Tiong Bio, et al. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue G.R. No. L-15714April 23, 1962 Lorenza Fabian, et al. vs. Eulogio Mencias, et al. G.R. No. L-15634April 23, 1962 People of the Philippines vs. Juanito Llanto G.R. No. L-14716April 23, 1962 Teresa Realty, Inc. vs. Jose Sison G.R. No. L-11816April 23, 1962 People of the Philippines vs. Oscar Castello, et al. G.R. No. L-19447April 18, 1962 Adolfo Columbres, et al. vs. Higinio B. Macadaeg, et al. G.R. No. L-19440April 18, 1962 Cesar Climaco, et al. vs. Higinio B. Macadaeg, et al. G.R. No. L-16864April 18, 1962 Valderama Lumber Manufacturers' Co., Inc. vs. Vicente N. Cusi, Jr. G.R. No. L-16642April 18, 1962 Antonio Ragudo, et al. vs. Emelita R. Pasno G.R. No. L-15162April 18, 1962 Philippine American Drug Co. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-13704April 18, 1962 Benjamin T. Asuncion vs. Luz de Asis de Aquino G.R. No. L-18462April 13, 1962 Meneleo B. Bernardez vs. Francisco T. Valera The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Northwest Airlines, Inc. vs. Northwest Airlines Philippines Employees Association, et al. Mercedes Raffiñan vs. Felipe L. Abel Gonzalo Puyat and Sons, Inc. vs. Philippine National Bank Adelaida Tabotabo vs. Aguedo Tabotabo, et al. A.C. Esguerra and Sons vs. Dominador R. Aytona, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo Santos Liberata Antonio Estrada, et al. vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al. C.N. Hodges vs. Elpidio Javellana, et al. Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co. vs. Manila Port Terminal, et al. Eustaquio Juan ,et al. vs. Vicenta Zuñiga, et al. Franco J. Altomonte vs. Philippine-American Drug Co. Pedro R. Jao, et al. vs. Royal Financing Corp., et al. Natividad Vernus-Sanciangco vs. Diosdado Sanciangco, et al. Arsenio Sumilang vs. Gualberto Castillo, et al. Manila Electric Co. vs. Public Service Commission Caltex Employees Association-PAFLU vs. Antonio Lucero, et al. Teodulo Dominguez, et al. vs. Roman B. de Jesus, et al. Oromeca Lumber Co., Inc. vs. Social Security Commission, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Basilio Padua, et al. Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Finley J. Gibbs, et al. Catalino Balbecino, et al. vs. Wenceslao M. Ortega, et al. Finley J. Gibbs, et al. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, et al. Vicente Paz, etc., etc al. vs. Court of Agrarian relations, et al. Macaria de Domingo vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al. Register of Deeds of Manila vs. China Banking Corp. Florentina Mata de Stuart vs. Nicasio Yatco Bacolod Gold Mining Co. vs. Benjamin Tabisola, et al. Republic of the Philippines vs. Xavier Gun Trading, et al. Republic of the Philippines vs. Tomas Dorego, et al. In re: Go chang Jayme S. Tan vs. Republic of the Philippines In re: Francisco F. Gonzales IV Hermogenes Concepcion, Jr. vs. Francisco F. Gonzales IV San Miguel Brewery, Inc. vs. Elpidio, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Timoteo Cruz, et al. Lino Gutierrez vs. Lucaino L. Medel, et al. Maria B. Castro vs. Collector of Internal Revenue Worldwide Paper Mills, Inc. vs. Labor Relations Commission, et al. Ramcar Inc. vs. Domingo Garcia Arminio Rivera vs. Litam and Co., et al. Olivio G. Ruiz vs. Cedar V. Pastor Encarnacion Bacani, et al. vs. Felicisima Paz Samia Galauran, et al. Ildefonso Suzara vs. Hermogenes Caluag, et al. In re: Norma Lee Caber Ricardo R. Caraballo vs. Republic Pindañgan Agricultural Company, Inc. vs. Jose P. Dans, et al. Leona Aglibot, et al. vs. Andrea Acay Mañalac, et al. Caltex (Philippines), Inc. vs. katipunan Labor Union Francisco Pascual vs. Commission Customs Dominador Carlos vs. Benigno Palaganas, et al. National Shipyards and Steel Corp. vs. Martin Artoz, et al. Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Ireneo Santella, et al. Fernando Lacson, et al. vs. Bacolod City, et al. Tan Tiong Bio, et al. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Lorenza Fabian, et al. vs. Eulogio Mencias, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Juanito Llanto Teresa Realty, Inc. vs. Jose Sison People of the Philippines vs. Oscar Castello, et al. Adolfo Columbres, et al. vs. Higinio B. Macadaeg, et al. Cesar Climaco, et al. vs. Higinio B. Macadaeg, et al. Valderama Lumber Manufacturers' Co., Inc. vs. Vicente N. Cusi, Jr. Antonio Ragudo, et al. vs. Emelita R. Pasno Philippine American Drug Co. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Benjamin T. Asuncion vs. Luz de Asis de Aquino Meneleo B. Bernardez vs. Francisco T. Valera The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-17378             April 30, 1962

NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC.,petitioner,
vs.
NORTHWEST AIRLINES PHILIPPINE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
LOUISE MATEU and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS,respondents.

Manuel Tomacruz for petitioner.
Jose C. Espinas for respondent Northwest Airlines Philippine Employees Association.
F. A. Sambajon for respondent Court of Industrial Relations.

BARRERA,J.:

On April 8, 1960, respondents Northwest Airlines Philippine Employees Association, Antonio Suarez, Brigido Sibug, and Louise Mateu filed with respondent Court of Industrial Relations a joint petition for injunction¹against petitioner Northwest Airlines, Inc. alleging, inter alia, that respondents Suarez, Sibug, and Mateu are employees of petitioner company; that on January 28, 1958, respondents Suarez and Sibug filed with respondent Court an unfair labor practice case docketed as Case No. 1553-ULP, and respondent Mateu also filed with the same court an unfair labor practice case docketed as Case No. 1205-ULP against petitioner company; that Case No. 1205-ULP was amicably settled, while in Case No. 1553-ULP, respondents Sibug and Suarez were ordered reinstated to their positions under the same terms and conditions before their dismissal;²that on February 29, 1960, respondents Suarez, Sibug, and Mateu received from petitioner company a notice of termination of their services on May 1, 1960 in Manila, but that if they wished to, they could be re-employed in Tokyo; that said termination of employment is contrary to the decision of respondent Court in Case No. 1553-ULP and to the settlement entered into between the parties in the case of respondent Mateu in Case No. 1205-ULP; that petitioner company is making said termination of employment because they have filed cases against it with respondent Court; that by re-employing respondents in Tokyo as an alternative to their dismissal, petitioner company seeks to have them outside of the protection of Philippine labor laws; that petitioner company will terminate their employment unless they accede to re-employment in Tokyo on May 1, 1960, and the same will render ineffectual the judgment of respondent Court in Case No. 1553-UPL; and that great and irreparable injury will be sustained by respondents, in case their employment is terminated by petitioner company, or if they refuse to accede to being re-employed in Tokyo. Respondents, therefore, prayed that pending final determination of the case, respondent Court issue a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining petitioner company from carrying out the termination of their employment.

On April 26, 1960, petitioner company received notice of hearing from respondent Court as to Case No. 1553-ULP, set for April 28, 1960. The notice of hearing did not mention Case No. 1205-ULP. Pursuant thereto, the parties through their respective counsel, appeared before respondent Court on said date. At the hearing, petitioner company manifested that having received notice of hearing as to Case No. 1553-ULP only, it was limiting its appearance to said case. Hearing proceeded accordingly, both parties presenting their respective evidence.

On April 30, 1960, respondent Court granted a writ of preliminary injunction to respondents association. Suarez Sibug, and Mateu, in order which reads: .

On May 4, 1960, petitioner company filed separate motions for reconsideration in Cases Nos. 1553-ULP and 1205-ULP. In his motion for reconsideration relating to Case No. 1205-ULP, he alleged that (1) said case had been dismissed in 1957, which dismissal is final and respondent Court "had no jurisdiction" to issue the order of April 30, 1960; (2) that there was no hearing on said case and hence, there is also no jurisdiction to issue said order; and (3) there was no previous award or order in said case, and no labor dispute was alleged in respondents' petition for injunction which, if proven, could be the basis for issuance of preliminary injunction. To said motions for reconsideration, respondents filed a reply on May 7, 1960 alleging that the records will show that their petition for injunction filed on April 8, 1960 referred not only to respondents Suarez and Sibug, but also to respondent Mateu as may be seen from the caption of said petition; that while the clerical error committed in the notice of hearing received by petitioner company made it appear that only Case No. 1553-ULP was being heard, the records will show that the matter being heard was "the injunction petition and not the unfair labor practice cases"; that petitioner cannot claim lack of notice, because it was duly informed by the allegations contained in said petition for injunction which it had received and to which it replied; and that the injunction with reference to respondent Mateu is preliminary and, therefore, interlocutory in nature and is improper for reconsideration and should be brought only in the hearing on the merits. On May 13, 1960, respondent Court denied said motions for reconsideration in its resolution in banc of the following tenor: .

On September 2, 1960, petitioner company filed with this Court the present petition forcertiorari, insofar only as Louise Mateu (Case No. 1205 (1)-ULP) is concerned, with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin respondent Court pending the determination of the case on its merits from executing its order of April 30, 1960 with respect to respondent Louise Mateu. In due time, we sued the preliminary injunction prayed for.

We find merit in petitioner-company's contention that respondent Court acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction in granting the writ of preliminary injunction insofar as respondent Mateu is concerned. The writ was granted on a mere verified motion presented as an incident in Case No. 1205-ULP which was dismissed on May 30, 1957.

As far as can be gathered from the records before us, that case involved the propriety or legality of the deductions made by the company from the salary of respondent Mateu covering medical bills advanced by the company in Tokyo for Miss Mateu. Claiming that the deductions were not authorized by law, Miss Mateu filed said Case No. 1205-ULP. Miss Mateu having questioned the deduction, the company felt it could not under the law withhold a part of the employee's wages as it was strictly not a debt due but a disputed obligation. Hence, the company refunded the deduction and the parties amicably settled the case. Respondent Court upon agreement of the parties dismissed the case on May 30, 1957, in an order which reads: .

As it appears, the only matter involved in that Case No. 1205-ULP was the payment of medical expenses incurred by Miss Mateu while in Japan. At most, it concerned the question as to who was liable for such payment, the employee or the company, and whether the same was deductible from the employee's salary. Nothing was mentioned nor was there anything from the pleadings or the order of dismissal from which it could be inferred about the continuance or discontinuance of Miss Mateu in the service of the company. Upon the other hand, the present petition for injunction seeks to enjoin petitioner company from terminating the employment of respondent Mateu on entirely different ground. There is clearly no connection whatsoever between the two cases, both in issue and subject matter. True it is, that under Section 17 of Commonwealth Act No. 103, the Court of Industrial Relations may, on application of an interested party, and after due hearing, "alter, modify in whole or in part, or set aside any such award, order or decision, or reopen any question involved therein" during the effectiveness of said decision or award, and that if the effectivity is not therein specified, any of the interested parties may terminate the effectiveness of the decision or award three (3) years thereafter. But this applies only where the subsequent matter is incidental or related to the original or main case and not where, as in the instant case, the new controversy has absolutely no relation or is alien to the original or main case. To hold otherwise would be to grant to respondent Court excessive or broad powers, not conferred or contemplated by the statute. The question of employment and lay off of respondent Mateu, it is recalled, was never an issue in the original or main Case No. 1205-ULP filed and dismissed in 1957. In the circumstances, it would be unfair to restrain petitioner company by injunction from terminating her (Mateu's) employment in a case filed merely as an incident to a main case of an entirely different issue and subject matter.

WHEREFORE, the herein petition for certiorari and prohibition is granted and the order of respondent Court (dated April 30, 1960) as well as its resolution in banc (of May 13, 1960) affirming said order insofar as respondent Louise is concerned, are hereby set aside without prejudice to the right of respondent Mateu to question her lay-off in a separate appropriate proceeding. The preliminary injunction heretofore issued by this Court is made permanent. No costs. So ordered.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L. and Paredes, JJ., concur.

Footnotes