United Pepsi-Cola Sales Organization v. Cañizares
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The respondent Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of the Philippines, Inc. filed a complaint for injunction against the United Pepsi-Cola Sales Organization (UPSO), Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU), and its president. The complaint alleged that on April 16, 1957, approximately 100 employees and laborers, members of the defendant unions, declared a strike and formed picket lines that completely blocked the company premises. The complaint further stated that acts of violence and intimidation occurred during the picketing, and the Quezon City Police Department failed to provide requested protection. The company claimed that reasonable efforts to settle the labor dispute had been made, that it had no other adequate legal remedy, and that irreparable injury would occur without an immediate restraining order. Procedural History: On the same day the complaint was filed, the respondent court received testimony under oath from the plaintiff's witnesses. Upon the company posting a P1000 bond, the court issued a writ of preliminary injunction ex parte, ordering the defendants to cease obstructing the ingress and egress of non-striking employees and the public, and to refrain from preventing employees from carrying out their work. The Petition: Without seeking dissolution of the injunction from the lower court, the defendant unions filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court two days after the injunction was issued, seeking to nullify the order.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction to issue the injunction, considering the pendency of an unfair labor practice case between the same parties before the Court of Industrial Relations. Whether the writ of preliminary injunction was issued in accordance with the procedure outlined by Republic Act No. 875.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is denied, and the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the trial court on April 25, 1957, is declared no longer operative.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction: The Supreme Court held that the petition for certiorari must be dismissed because the petitioner failed to raise the issue of jurisdiction before the trial court. The Court emphasized the settled rule that certiorari will not lie where the relief sought is obtainable in the court of origin and its attention has not been called to the supposed error. The connection between the acts complained of in the injunction case and the unfair labor practice case before the Court of Industrial Relations was not apparent on the face of the record and should have been presented to the lower court for its determination. The Court noted that the complaint for injunction did not indicate that an unfair labor practice was involved, and jurisdiction of the Industrial Court cannot be assumed solely from the filing of an unfair labor practice case. The criterion is whether the acts complained of arose out of or were connected with the unfair labor practice case, a factual question that should have been brought to the attention of the a quo court. On the procedural compliance with Republic Act No. 875: The Supreme Court found that the writ of preliminary injunction was issued in accordance with Section 9(d) of Republic Act No. 875. This section requires that an ex parte injunction be issued only "upon testimony under oath, sufficient, if sustained, to justify the court in issuing a temporary injunction upon hearing after notice." The Court found that this procedure was followed, as the allegations in the verified complaint were substantially sufficient, and the lower court's order explicitly stated that the complaint was "supported by testimony of witnesses given under oath." Furthermore, the Court reiterated that a temporary restraining order issued ex parte under Section 9(d) of Republic Act No. 875 is effective for no longer than five days and becomes void at its expiration by operation of law, even without a judicial pronouncement. Therefore, the injunction in question, having been issued ex parte, was no longer operative.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari to nullify an order of preliminary injunction will not lie if the issue of jurisdiction was not first raised before the trial court, and the writ of preliminary injunction issued ex parte, if not extended, becomes void after five days by operation of law.