Labor Relations Case Digest 7

8/9/2019 Labor Relations Case Digest 7

1/7

Philippine Association of Free Labor vs. Emilio Salas

G.R. No. L-390! Febr"ar# $3% &9

Facts:

Petitioner filed a complaint for unfair labor practice with the then Court of Industrial Relations(CIR) against the Northwest manufacturing Corporation and a certain Gan Hun !he CIR rendered a

"ecision in fa#or of the petitioner and commenced le#$ing the personal properties of the said Gan Hun%

particularl$ the properties found in his residential apartment Pri#ate respondent &ong 'ing uenhowe#er% claims that Gan Hun is his boarder in the apartment unit mentioned earlier and that the

properties inside the apartment unit le#ied b$ the pro#incial sheriff belong to him and not to Gan Hun

!hus% the pri#ate respondent filed a Complaint for damages with the then Court of First Instanceagainst the pro#incial sheriff s sought b$ the pri#ate respondent% the CFI% with the herein respondent

*udge +milio , -alas presiding therein% issued an in.uncti#e writ restraining the pro#incial sheriff from

proceeding with the sale of the properties in /uestion fter ha#ing been allowed b$ the CFI tointer#ene the petitioner labor organi0ation sought to dismiss the Complaint on the ground that the said

court had no .urisdiction o#er the case filed b$ the pri#ate respondent !he petitioner argued that said

case relates to an e1isting labor dispute and as such the proper forum for the same is the industrial

court Pri#ate respondent points out that the case is an ordinar$ ci#il action for damages against thepro#incial sheriff and directed against the sheriffs bond re/uired under -ection 23% Rule 45 of the Rules

of Court !he pri#ate respondent adds that it is an entirel$ separate proceeding distinct from the labor

case filed with the CIR and that% accordingl$% it is the Court of First Instance which has .urisdictiono#er the same

Issue: &hether or not the CFI has the .urisdiction to issue the in.uncti#e relief /uestioned b$ thepetitioner

Ruling:

es !he case is directed against the pro#incial sheriff and the reco#er$ of damages is soughtagainst the bond pro#ided for -ection 23% Rule 45 of the Rules of Court go#erning e1ecution and

satisfaction of .udgments +#en if the act complained of b$ the pri#ate respondent arose from a labor

dispute between the petitioner and another part$% the ine#itable conclusion remains the same 6 there isno labor dispute between the petitioner and the pri#ate respondent !he case has no direct bearing with

the case flied with the industrial court !he ci#il case remains distinct from the labor dispute pending

with the CIR7nder Commonwealth ct No 284% the law creating the Court of Industrial Relations% the

.urisdiction of the industrial court is limited to labor disputes ie% problems and contro#ersies

pertaining to the relationship between emplo$er and emplo$ee From the foregoing% it is clear that the.urisdiction of the CIR can be in#o9ed onl$ when there is a dispute arising between or affecting

emplo$ers and emplo$ees% or when an emplo$eremplo$ee relationship e1ists between the parties

!here being no labor dispute between the petitioner and the pri#ate respondent% the Court of

First Instance has the .urisdiction to issue the in.uncti#e relief sought b$ the pri#ate respondent !helatter case can proceed independentl$ of the case pending in the Court of Industrial Relations


2/7

Alfre'o Primero vs. (nterme'iate Appellate )o"rt

G.R. No. *$+!! ,ecember &!% &9*

Facts:

Petitioner Primero was discharged from his emplo$ment as bus dri#er of "; !ransitCorporation !hus% he instituted proceedings against "; with the 52 eliminated the restricti#e clause placed b$ P" 24>3% that Regional"irectors shall not indorse and


3/7

Servan'os (nc. vs. Secretar# of Labor an' Emplo#ment

G.R. No. !0 April $+% &990

Facts:

!he Regional "irector issued an order% re/uiring petitioner to pa$ its emplo$ees for thedeficiencies in wages and allowances of said emplo$ees after the 32B% to wit: (2) the claim is presented b$ an emplo$ee or person emplo$ed in domestic or household

ser#ice% or househelper@ (A) the claim arises from emplo$eremplo$ee relations@ (4) the claimant doesnot see9 reinstatement@ and () the aggregate mone$ claim of each emplo$ee or househelper does not

e1ceed PB%88888

Going o#er the records of this case% we note that the aggregate claims of each of the fift$ four(B) emplo$ees of herein petitioner are o#er and abo#e the amount of PB%88888 7nder the

circumstances% the power to ad.udicate such claims belongs to the


4/7

Sin/apore Airlines vs. on.Ernani )r"1-Pano

G.R. No. L-!**39 2"ne $$% &93

Facts:

Pri#ate Respondent Carlos Cru0 was offered emplo$ment b$ petitioner as +ngineer Dfficer withthe opportunit$ to undergo a training course Cru0 signed the greement with his corespondent

,illanue#a% as suret$ Claiming that Cru0 had applied for ?lea#e without pa$? and had gone on lea#e

without appro#al of the application during the second $ear of the Period of fi#e $ears% petitioner filedsuit for damages against Cru0 and his suret$% ,illanue#a% for #iolation of the terms and conditions of

the aforesaid greement Petitioner sought the pa$ment of the following sums Cru0 denied an$ breach

of contract contending that at no time had he been re/uired b$ petitioner to agree to a straight ser#ice offi#e $ears under Clause of the greement and that he left the ser#ice on ?#alid compassionate

grounds stated to and accepted b$ the compan$ so that no damages ma$ be awarded against him

Respondent *udge issued the assailed Drder dismissing the complaint% counterclaim and crossclaim for lac9 of .urisdiction because the present case in#ol#ed a mone$ claim arising from an

emplo$eremplo$ee relation or at the #er$ least a case arising from emplo$eremplo$ee relations%

which under rt A2> of the


5/7

FEs Ele/ance Lo'/in/ o"se vs. on. Leon "rillo

G.R. Nos. &&*!!$-!3 2an"ar# &&% &99

Facts:

Pri#ate respondents% former emplo$ees of petitioners whose ser#ices were terminated% filedagainst petitioner before the N


6/7

Gelmart (n'"stries 4Phils.5 (nc. vs. on. 6icente Leo/ar'o

G.R. No. *0!! November % &9*

Facts:

Petitioner had a collecti#e bargaining agreement with G!CDR" which co#ered petitioner=s%888 ran9andfile wor9ers among whom is the pri#ate respondent *uanillo G!CDR" went on

stri9e !he ;inistr$ of


7/7

LA78R RELA(8NS

)ase ,i/ests

2 Philippine ssociation of Free

Documents

Labor Relations Case Digest 7