Tablante-Tungol Enterprises v. Noriel
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the petitioner, Tablante-Tungol Enterprises, which has repeatedly refused to engage in collective bargaining with the private respondent, the Association of Democratic Labor Organization (ADLO). This refusal has led to multiple legal challenges and petitions. 2. Procedural History: The petitioner first filed a certiorari and prohibition petition in May 1976 to challenge a resolution ordering a certification election, which was dismissed for lack of merit. A second certiorari petition was filed in December 1976, seeking to nullify a certification election held in May 1976 where ADLO was unanimously chosen as the bargaining representative; this petition was also dismissed in November 1977 for lack of merit and absence of grave abuse of discretion. 3. The Petition: The current certiorari proceeding, filed by petitioner Tablante-Tungol Enterprises, argues that the registration and permit of the private respondent labor organization should be cancelled because it allegedly engaged in an illegal strike. This argument is based on Section 11(2) of Presidential Decree No. 823, although the petitioner admits this penalty is not present in the amendment, Presidential Decree No. 849. The petitioner also attempts to rely on Article 239(e) of the Labor Code, which lists engaging in prohibited activities as grounds for cancellation, but the Solicitor General argues this phrase should be interpreted narrowly and does not encompass an illegal strike. Subsequently, both the petitioner and private respondent filed a joint motion to dismiss the petition, asserting that the issues have become moot and academic due to an amicable settlement reached between the parties.
Issue(s)
Whether the registration and permit of the Association of Democratic Labor Organization (ADLO) should be cancelled due to its alleged engagement in an illegal strike. Whether the petition for certiorari should be dismissed as moot and academic.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is dismissed for being moot and academic. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's claim regarding the cancellation of the labor organization's registration.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the registration and permit of the Association of Democratic Labor Organization (ADLO) should be cancelled due to its alleged engagement in an illegal strike: The Court found no merit in the petitioner's contention. Petitioner relied on Section 11(2) of Presidential Decree No. 823, which provided for the cancellation of registration for violations. However, this section was amended by Presidential Decree No. 849, which prescribed penalties of fine and/or imprisonment, and no longer included cancellation of registration as a penalty for violations of the decree. Petitioner's alternative reliance on Article 240(e) of the Labor Code, which grounds cancellation on engaging in prohibited activities, was also rejected. The Solicitor General's Comment clarified that the phrase "or otherwise engaging in any activity prohibited by law" in Article 240(e) should be construed to mean activities similar in nature to being a labor contractor or engaging in the "cabo" system, and not an illegally declared strike. The Court noted that if the law intended to include illegally declared strikes, it would have been expressly stated, as was done in the original Presidential Decree No. 823. On Whether the petition for certiorari should be dismissed as moot and academic: The Court noted that after the Solicitor General filed an exhaustive Comment finding no merit in the petition, both the petitioner and the private respondent filed a joint motion to dismiss. In their motion, the parties stated that they had met for an amicable settlement, threshed out their disputes, and found ways to render the case moot and academic. They expressed that they were no longer interested in the outcome of the case and prayed for its dismissal on these grounds. The Court granted this prayer, dismissing the petition as moot and academic.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that a petition for certiorari must demonstrate grave abuse of discretion by the public respondent. In this instance, the petitioner's claim that the labor organization's registration should be cancelled due to an alleged illegal strike was found to be without merit, particularly in light of amendments to Presidential Decree No. 823 which removed such a penalty and the specific interpretation of Article 240(e) of the Labor Code. Moreover, the Court recognized that a case can be dismissed as moot and academic when both parties jointly move for dismissal after reaching an amicable settlement.