G.R. Nos.

L-30632-33 April 11, 1972

CALTEX FILIPINO MANAGERS AND SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC., W.E. MENEFEE and B.F.
EDWARDS, respondents.

I. Facts/Summary

The Caltex Filipino Managers and Supervisors' Association (hereinafter referred to as Union) is a labor organization of
Filipino managers supervisors in Caltex (Philippines), Inc., which sent a letter to the respondent informing them of the
Union’s registration to which the respondent inquired of the position titles of the employees that the Union sought to
represent. The Union sent proposals to the respondent wherein one of the demands was the recognition of the
Association as the duly authorized bargaining agency for managers and supervisors of the respondent which was
countered by the respondent, stating that a distinction exists between representatives of management and individuals
employed as supervisors and that it is respondent's belief that managerial employees are not qualified for membership
in a labor organization which caused the Union to issue a certification proceeding to remove any question with regard to
position titles that should be included in the bargaining unit. The Union filed notice to strike for reasons of refusal to
bargain and act on demands by the respondent; the respondent’s resort to union-busting tactics in order to discourage
the activities of the Union including discrimination and intimidation of the Union’s members. The Judge handling the
hearing of the certification proceedings advised the employees not to go on strike; and on the basis of the strike notice
filed, the Union struck after the efforts exerted to settle differences failed. Because of this, the respondent filed an
urgent petition to declare the said strike as illegal; that the officers and members of Union who have instigated,
declared, encouraged and/or participated in the illegal strike be held and punished for contempt and be declared to
have lost their employee status; that a temporary injunction be issued to restrain the Union and its members from doing
acts that would disrupt the respondent’s activities.

The petition was met by the Union with a motion to dismiss questioning the jurisdiction of the industrial court which
was opposed by the respondent and by the trial court. Because of the settlement between the parties of some of their
disputes, the Union filed with respondent court a manifestation to the effect that the issues had become moot and
academic. The respondent company filed a counter-manifestation disputing the representations of the Union on the
effect of the return-to-work agreement. On the basis of the manifestation and counter-manifestation, respondent court
en banc issued a resolution on which allowed the withdrawal of the Union's motion for reconsideration against the
order on the theory that there was justification for such withdrawal. After several filing of different motions, the trial
court ruled that under the return-to-work agreement the respondent company had reserved its rights to prosecute and
directed that the case be set for hearing covering the alleged illegality of the strike. The Union’s charge for unfair labor
practices against the respondent company was denied by the respondent.

II. Issue/s

It was being questioned whether or not the Court of Industrial Relations can assume jurisdiction in the case at hand. It
was also being questioned whether or not the strike staged by the Union is illegal and, incident thereto, whether
respondent court correctly terminated the employee status of Jose Mapa, Dominador Mangalino and Herminigildo
Mandanas and reprimanded and admonished the other officers of the Association. Moreover, there are contentions
onwWhether or not respondent court correctly absolved the respondents from the unfair labor practice charge.

III. Applicable Provisions of the Labor Code/Special Laws

Sec. 9 of Republic Act No. 875 - AN ACT TO PROMOTE INDUSTRIAL PEACE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
(REPEALED BY PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 442)

Sec. 9 - Injunctions in Labor Disputes

(d) No court of the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue a temporary or permanent injunction in any case
involving or growing out of a labor dispute, as herein defined except after hearing the testimony of witnesses in open
court (with opportunity for cross-examination) in support of the allegations of a complaint made under oath, and
testimony in opposition thereto, if offered, and except after finding of fact by the Court, to the effect:

(1) That unlawful acts have been threatened and will be committed unless restrained, or have been
committed and will be continued unless restrained, but no injunction or temporary restraining order shall be issued on
account of any threat or unlawful act excepting against the person or persons, association, or organization making the
threat or committing the unlawful act or actually authorizing or ratifying the same after actual knowledge thereof;

(2) That substantial and irreparable injury to complainant's property will follow;

(3) That as to each item of relief granted greater injury will be inflicted upon complainant by the denial of
relief that will be inflicted upon defendants by the granting of relief;

(4) That complaint has no adequate remedy at law; and

(5) That the public officers charged with the duty to protect complainant's property are unable or unwilling
to furnish adequate protection.

Sec. 10 of Republic Act No. 875 - AN ACT TO PROMOTE INDUSTRIAL PEACE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

(REPEALED BY PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 442)

Section 10. Labor Disputes in Industries Indispensable to the National Interest. - When in the opinion of the President of
the Philippines there exists a labor dispute in an industry indispensable to the national interest and when such labor
dispute is certified by the President to the Court of Industrial Relations, said Court may cause to be issued a restraining
order forbidding the employees to strike or the employer to lockout the employees, pending an investigation by the
Court, and if no other solution to the dispute is found, the Court may issue an order fixing the terms and conditions of
employment.

IV. Decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled that there can be no injunction issued against any strike except when a labor dispute arises in
an industry indispensable to the national interest and such dispute is certified by the President of the Philippines to the
Court of Industrial Relations in compliance with Sec. 10 of Republic Act No. 875; however in this case, as the respondent
has sought injunctive relief under Sec. 9(d) of Republic Act No.875, respondent court had jurisdiction over the
Company's "Urgent Petition" . The Supreme Court also ruled that the strike of the Caltex Filipino Managers and
Supervisors' Association as legal in all respects and ordered the respondent company to reinstate J.J. Mapa and
Dominador Mangalino to their former positions without loss of seniority and privileges, with backwages from the time of
dismissal. Since Herminigildo Mandanas appears to have voluntarily left the Company, no reinstatement is ordered as to
him. The Supreme Court also ruled that respondent company is guilty of unfair labor practices and they are therefore
ordered to cease and desist from the same and they are directed to pay backwages to the striking employees.