8/9/2019 Manila Oriental v. Nlu

1/2

 Torts and Damages

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-4330 March 24, 1952

MANILA ORIENTAL SAWMILL CO., petitioner,vs.

NATIONAL LAOR UNION a!" COURT O# IN$USTRIAL

RELATIONS, respondents.

 Eulogio Lerum for respondent National Labor Union. Arsenio I. Martinez for Court of Industrial Relations.

AUTISTA ANGELO,  J.%

This is a petition for review of an order of the respondent court dated

Septeber !, "#$%, declarin& the stri'e sta&ed b( the ebers of therespondent )nion le&al and settin& the case for hearin& for the

deterination of the deands presented b( said )nion to petitioner.

*n Ma( +, "#$%, the )nited Eplo(ees elfare Association, a union

dul( re&istered in the -epartent of abor and with ebers aon&the eplo(ees of the petitioner, entered into an a&reeent of wor'in&

conditions with the petitioner pursuant to a settleent concluded in acase No. "/012 of the Court of 3ndustrial Relations. The said

a&reeent was to last for one (ear.

*n Au&ust "+, "#$%, thirt(1si4 of the thirt(1seven ebers of the said

)nited Eplo(ees elfare Association tendered in their resi&nationsfro the sae union and 5oined the local chapter of the respondent

 National abor )nion. There is no evidence that these resi&nations

were ade with the approval of petitioner.

*n Au&ust "$, "#$%, the president of the respondent union sent a letter to petitioner containin& seven deands alle&edl( on behalf of the

ebers of its local chapter who are eplo(ed b( the petitioner, towhich the latter, throu&h its counsel, answered with another letter

statin& aon& other thin&s that the laborers on whose behalf the letter

of Au&ust "$, "#$%, has been written were affiliated with the )nited

Eplo(ees elfare Association.

*n Au&ust 66, "#$%, the respondent union reiterated its deands. 3n

repl(, counsel for petitioner sent a letter that a petitioner could not

reco&ni7e the alle&ed local chapter of the respondent union until andafter the a&reeent of Ma( +, "#$%, entered into b( the sae

eplo(ees concerned and petitioner is declared null and void b( theCourt of 3ndustrial Relations.

*n Au&ust 6!, "#$%, the ebers of the respondent union struc'.

*n Au&ust 0", "#$%, petitioner filed a petition in the Court of

3ndustrial Relations to declare the stri'e ille&al.

*n Septeber !, "#$%, the Court of 3ndustrial Relations, throu&h itsPresidin& 8ud&e, 9onorable Arsenio Roldan, issued an order den(in&

 petitioner:s pra(er that said stri'e be declared ille&al and settin& the

case for hearin& on the deands pra(ed for b( respondent union.

*n Septeber 6%, "#$%, petitioner filed a otion for reconsideration

of said order, and on Noveber "+, "#$%, the court of 3ndustrialRelations en banc denied the otion for reconsideration. 9ence this

 petition for review.

Petitioner clais that the order of the respondent court of Septeber !,

"#$%, is null and void because, in refusin& to declare the stri'e sta&ed b( the ebers of the respondents union ille&al notwithstandin& the

a&reeent entered into between the labor union to which theeplo(ees who struc' forerl( belon&ed and petitioner which is still

valid and subsistin&, it violated the constitutional precept underl(in&

the freedo of contract.1 thil lozada

8/9/2019 Manila Oriental v. Nlu

2/2

 Torts and Damages

e find erit in this clai. The record shows that the local chapter ofthe respondent union is coposed entirel(, e4cept one, of ebers

who ade up the total ebership of the )nited Eplo(ees elfareAssociation, a re&istered union in the petitioner:s copan(. To be

e4act, thirt(1si4 of the thirt(1seven ebers of said association

tendered their resi&nations and 5oined the local chapter of the

respondent union without first securin& the approval of theirresi&nations. The new )nion then sou&ht to present a seven1pointdeand of the ver( sae eplo(ees to petitioner, which in a(

respects differs fro their previous deand. 3t is evident that the

 purpose of their transfer is erel( to disre&ard and circuvent thecontract entered into between the sae eplo(ees and the petitioner

on Ma( +, "#$%, 'nowin& full well that contract was effective for one(ear, and was entered into with the sanction of the Court of industrial

Relations. 3f this ove were allowed the result would be a subversionof a contract freel( entered into without an( valid and 5ustifiable

reason. Such act cannot be sanctioned in law or in e;uit( as is it indero&ation of the principle underl(in& the freedo of contract and the&ood faith that should e4ist in contractual relations.

A labor or&ani7ation is wholesoe if it serves its le&itiate purpose of 

settlin& labor disputes. That is wh( it is &iven personalit( and

reco&nition in concludin& collective bar&ainin& a&reeents. but if it isade use of as asubterfu&e, or as a eans to subvert valid

coitents, it outlives its purpose for far fro bein& an aid, it tendsto underine the haronious relations between ana&eent and

labor. Such is the ove underta'en b( the respondent union. Such aove cannot be considered lawful and cannot receive the sanction ofthe Court. 9ence, the stri'e it has sta&ed is ille&al.

The anifest ob5ect of the act is to prevent industrial strife,

confusion and unrest. 3ndustrial peace is prooted b(

collective a&reeents obtained for eplo(ees throu&h theediu of their bona fide labor or&ani7ations or other proper

representatives, free fro eplo(er interference. . . . And thisis particularl( so in the instance case, where the eplo(er is a

 bus copan(, operatin& a business affected with the public

interest, under a public franchise. I cannot conceive it to havebeen the intent of the legislature to permit emploees! "here a

valid e#isting contract is involved and under the circumstances presented here! to substitute one bargaining agenc for

another "henever it suits their purpose! or the purpose of the

rival labor organizations during the life of the contract . 3f

eplo(ees, are to en5o( actual libert( of contract throu&h theirlabor or&ani7ations or other bona fide representatives, and their contracts are to be effective, their obligations ma not be

repudiated simpl b the process of changing the

representatives, and in their own interest the( should not see'to do so. The contention that the ere holdin& of an election, in

certification of new representatives, would not in end of itselfaffect the contract or ipair its obli&ations is best answered b(

the board:s own lan&ua&e in its aended decision followin& thefirst representation proceedin& herein< =3n practice the result

i&ht well be otherwise under the particular circustances ofthe case.= >Triburo Coach Corp., 0 abor Cases, ?%,%/?@.>Ephasis supplied.@

herefore the order appealed fro is reversed, without

 pronounceent as to costs.

 $aras! C.%.! $ablo! &engzon! $adilla! 'uason! Montemaor! Rees and 

 %ugo! %%.! concur.

2 thil lozada