NUBE Vs Judge Lazaro

G.R. No.
L-56431 January 19, 1988

NATIONAL UNION OF BANK EMPLOYEES, In Its Own Right And In Behalf Of CBTC
EMPLOYEES Affiliated With It; CBTC EMPLOYEES UNION, In Its Own Right And
Interest And In Behalf Of All CBTC Rank And File Employees Including Its
Members, BENJAMIN GABAT, BIENVENIDO MORALEDA, ELICITA GAMBOA,
FAUSTINO TEVES, SALVADOR LISING, and NESTOR DE LOS SANTOS, petitioners,
vs.
THE HON. JUDGE ALFREDO M. LAZARO, CFI-MANILA BRANCH XXXV;
COMMERCLKL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES; BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS; AYALA CORPORATION; MANUEL J. MARQUEZ; ENRIQUE
ZOBEL; ALBERTO VILLA-ABRILLE; VICENTE A. PACIS, JR.; and DEOGRACIAS A.
FERNANDO, respondents.
FACTS:
On July 1, 1977, the Commercial Bank and Trust Company, a Philippine banking
institution, entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the Commercial
Bank and Trust Company Union, representing the rank and file of the bank with a
membership of over one thousand employees, and an affiliated local of the
National Union of Bank Employees, a national labor organization.
The agreement was effective until June 30, 1980, with an automatic renewal
clause until the parties execute a new agreement.
On May 20, 1980, the union, together with the National Union of Bank
Employees, submitted to the bank management proposals for the renegotiation
of a new collective bargaining agreement. The following day, however, the bank
suspended negotiations with the union. The bank had meanwhile entered into a
merger with the Bank of the Philippine Islands, another Philippine banking
institution, which assumed all assets and liabilities thereof.
As a consequence, the union went to the then Court of First Instance of Manila,
presided over by the respondent Judge, on a complaint for specific performance,
damages, and preliminary injunction against the private respondents. Among
other things, the complaint charged: In entering in to such arrangement for the
termination of the CURRENT CBA, and the consequent destruction to existing
rights, interests and benefits thereunder,CBTC is liable for wilful injury to the
contract and property rights thereunder as provided in Article 2220 of the Civil
Code of the Philippines;
Predictably, the private respondents moved for the dismissal of the case on the
ground, essentially, of lack of jurisdiction of the court.
On November 26, 1980, the respondent Judge issued an order, dismissing the
case for lack of jurisdiction.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the courts may take cognizance of claims for damages arising
from a labor controversy.
RULING:
The Supreme Court sustained the dismissal of the case and held that, as correctly
held by the respondent court, an unfair labor practice controversy within the
original and exclusive jurisdiction of the labor arbiters and the exclusive appellate
jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Commission. The claim against the
Bank of Philippine Islands — the principal respondent according to the petitioners
— for allegedly inducing the Commercial Bank and Trust Company to violate the
existing collective bargaining agreement in the process of re-negotiation, consists
mainly of the civil aspect of the unfair labor practice charge referred to under
Article 247 2 of the Labor Code.
Under Article 248 3 of the Labor Code, it shall be an unfair labor practice:
(a) To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization;
xxx xxx xxx
(g) To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by this Code;
xxx xxx xxx
The act complained of is broad enough to embrace either provision. Since it
involves collective bargaining — whether or not it involved an accompanying
violation of the Civil Code — it may rightly be categorized as an unfair labor
practice. The civil implications thereof do not defeat its nature as a fundamental
labor offense.
As we stated, the damages (allegedly) suffered by the petitioners only form part
of the civil component of the injury arising from the unfair labor practice. Under
Article 247 of the Code, "the civil aspects of all cases involving unfair labor
practices, which may include claims for damages and other affirmative relief, shall
be under the jurisdiction of the labor arbiters.
The petitioners' claimed injury as a consequence of the tort allegedly committed
by the private respondents, specifically, the Bank of the Philippine Islands, under
Article 1314 of the Civil Code, does not necessarily give the courts jurisdiction to
try the damage suit. Jurisdiction is conferred by law and not necessarily by the
nature of the action. Civil controversies are not the exclusive domain of the
courts. In the case at bar, Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended by Batas Blg.
70, has vested such a jurisdiction upon the labor arbiters, a jurisdiction the courts
may not assume.
Jurisdiction over unfair labor practice cases, moreover, belongs generally to the
labor department of the government, never the courts.
Furthermore, to hold that the alleged tortious act now attributed to the Bank of
the Philippine Islands may be the subject of a separate suit is to sanction split
jurisdiction long recognized to be an offense against the orderly administration of
justice. The Court stressed that to rule that such demand for damages is to be
passed upon by the regular courts of justice, instead of leaving the matter to the
Court of Industrial Relations, 'would be to sanction split jurisdiction, which is
prejudicial to the orderly administration of justice'.

NUBE Vs Judge Lazaro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NUBE Vs Judge Lazaro

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NUBE Vs Judge Lazaro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

L-56431 January 19, 1988

You might also like