View full case

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION-PTGWO v. JESUS G. BERSAMIRA

FACTS:

The petitioners in this case filed a special civil action for Certiorari and Prohibition against the respondent Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch 166. They challenged the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction in a labor dispute case titled "San Miguel Corporation vs. SMCEU-PTGWO, et als." The petitioners argued that the Writ was issued without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion. The respondent San Miguel Corporation (SanMig) defended the Writ by asserting that there was no employer-employee relationship between them and the contractual workers employed by Lipercon Services, Inc. and D'Rite Service Enterprises. The Union representing the workers alleged that these workers have been continuously working for SanMig and demanded their regularization. Despite conciliatory meetings and notices of strike for unfair labor practices, the dispute remained unresolved. SanMig then filed a Complaint for Injunction and Damages to enjoin the Union from various acts. The respondent Court found the Complaint sufficient and issued a Temporary Restraining Order. After several hearings, the Court granted the application for injunction and issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction. The petitioners now seek the nullification of the Writ, alleging grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the case involves or is in connection with a labor dispute, thus falling under the jurisdiction of labor tribunals.

  2. Whether there is an employer-employee relationship between SanMig and the contractual workers.

  3. Whether or not the Union demands are valid.

  4. Whether or not SanMig's contracts with Lipercon and D'Rite constitute "labor-only" contracting and, therefore, a regular employer-employee relationship may exist.

  5. Whether or not the Union can lawfully represent the workers of Lipercon and D'Rite in their demands against SanMig in the light of the existing CBA.

  6. Whether or not the notice of strike was valid and the strike itself legal when it was allegedly instigated to compel the employer to hire strangers outside the working unit.

RULING:

  1. The case involves a labor dispute as it concerns the terms and conditions of employment or a change or arrangement thereof. The existence of a labor dispute is not negated by the fact that there is no proximate relationship of employer and employee.

  2. The Court did not explicitly rule on the issue of the employer-employee relationship.

  3. The case involves labor disputes that call for the application of labor laws. Thus, jurisdiction belongs to the labor tribunals, according to Article 217 of the Labor Code. The claim for damages interwoven with the labor dispute should be ventilated before the administrative machinery established for the expeditious settlement of those disputes. The action for damages filed below should not prosper. The writ of certiorari is granted, and the orders of the respondent judge are set aside. The writ of prohibition is granted, and the respondent judge is enjoined from taking any further action in Civil Case No. 57055, except for the purpose of dismissing it. The status quo ante declaration of strike ordered by the Court shall be observed pending the proceedings in the National Conciliation Mediation Board - Department of Labor and Employment.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A labor dispute can exist regardless of whether there is an employer-employee relationship if the controversy concerns the terms and conditions of employment.

  • The existence of a labor dispute is not negated by the fact that the disputants do not stand in the proximate relationship of employer and employee.

  • Jurisdiction over labor disputes belongs to labor tribunals.

  • Claims for damages interwoven with labor disputes should be ventilated before the administrative machinery established for the settlement of labor disputes.

  • The rights of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining, and peaceful concerted activities must be recognized and protected.

  • The exercise of management prerogative by employers must be balanced with the rights of workers.