National Marketing Corporation Employees and Workers Association v. Tabigne
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Namarco Employees and Workers Association (NEWA) declared a strike against the National Marketing Corporation (NAMARCO) and established picket lines. NAMARCO filed a charge for unfair labor practice against NEWA, alleging the illegality of the strike, and also filed an urgent ex-parte petition for injunction to restrain NEWA from committing acts of coercion and intimidation. The Prosecution Division of the Industrial Court filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against NEWA. Procedural History: Respondent Judge issued a first restraining order enjoining NEWA from certain acts, which NEWA received. Subsequently, NAMARCO filed a second verified urgent ex-parte petition for another restraining order, alleging that NEWA defied the first order. Respondent Judge heard this second petition ex parte and issued a second restraining order. The Petition: NEWA filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, questioning the validity of the issuance of the second restraining order.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court can entertain a petition for certiorari against a restraining order issued by a single judge of the Court of Industrial Relations without prior recourse to the Court of Industrial Relations en banc. Whether the petition has become moot and academic.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of prior recourse to the Court of Industrial Relations en banc: The Court held that only an award, order, or decision of the CIR en banc, and not that of its individual judges, is appealable to the Supreme Court. Therefore, petitioner NEWA should have first resorted to the Court of Industrial Relations en banc by filing a motion for reconsideration before coming to the Supreme Court. The Court clarified that while a motion for reconsideration requires a period for the opposing party's answer, the CIR en banc has the power to stay or suspend the enforcement of any order, ruling, or decision of its trial judges pending resolution of the motion to reconsider, if such stay is imperative to prevent reconsideration from becoming nugatory. This power is implied in the right of the CIR en banc to affirm, alter, modify, or reverse the orders, rulings, or decisions of its trial judges. Failure to present a motion to reconsider before the CIR en banc is fatal to the instant petition. On the issue of mootness: The Court found that the dispute had become moot and academic because, after the case was filed with the Supreme Court, the parties entered into a return-to-work agreement, thereby ending the strike from which the incidents arose. Consequently, the petition was dismissed on this ground as well.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari questioning the issuance of a restraining order by a single judge of the Court of Industrial Relations must first be filed with the Court of Industrial Relations en banc before resorting to the Supreme Court. Furthermore, a case may be dismissed for being moot and academic if the underlying dispute has been resolved by the parties.