National Federation of Labor (NFL) v. Eisma

G.R. No.
L-61236 January 31, 1984

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR and ZAMBOWOOD MONTHLY EMPLOYEES
UNION, ITS OFFICERS AND MEMBERS, petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE CARLITO A. EISMA, LT. COL. JACOB CARUNCHO,
COMMANDING OFFICER, ZAMBOANGA DISTRICT COMMAND, PC, AFP, and
ZAMBOANGA WOOD PRODUCTS, respondents.
FERNANDO, C.J.
FACTS:
Petitioner National Federation of Labor, on March 5, 1982, filed with the Ministry
of Labor and Employment, Labor Relations Division, Zamboanga City, a petition for
direct certification as the sole exclusive collective bargaining representative of the
monthly paid employees of the respondent Zamboanga Wood Products, Inc. at its
manufacturing plant in Lumbayao, Zamboanga City. On 17April 1982, such employees
charged the firm before the same office for underpayment of monthly living allowances.
Then came, on May 3, 1982, from petitioner union, a notice of strike against private
respondent, alleging illegal termination of Dionisio Estioca, president of the said local
union; unfair labor practice, non-payment of living allowances; and "employment of
oppressive alien management personnel without proper permit. The strike began on 23
May 1982.
On July 9, 1982, private respondent Zambowood filed a complaint with
respondent Judge against the officers and members of petitioners union, for "damages
for obstruction of private property with prayer for preliminary injunction and/or
restraining order. The union filed a motion for the dismissal and for the dissolution of the
restraining order, and opposition to the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction,
contending that the incidents of picketing are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Labor Arbiter pursuant to Batas Pambansa 227 (Labor Code, Article 217) and not to the
Court of First Instance. The motion was denied. Hence, the petition for certiorari.
ISSUE:
WON construction of the law is required to determine jurisdiction.
HELD:
Nothing becomes clearer, therefore, than the meritorious character of this

petition. certiorari and prohibition lie, respondent Judge being devoid of jurisdiction to
act on the matter.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter in a judicial proceeding is conferred by the
sovereign authority which organizes the court; and it is given only by law. Jurisdiction is
never presumed; it must be conferred by law in words that do not admit of doubt. Since
the jurisdiction of courts and judicial tribunals is derived exclusively from the statutes of
the forum, the issue should be resolved on the basis of the law or statute in force.
Therefore, since (1) the original wording of Article 217 vested the labor arbiters with
jurisdiction; since (2) Presidential Decree 1691 reverted the jurisdiction with respect to
money claims of workers or claims for damages arising from employer-employee
relations to the labor arbiters after Presidential Decree 1367 transferred such jurisdiction
to the ordinary courts, and since (3) Batas Pambansa 130 made no change with respect
to the original and exclusive jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters with respect to money claims
of workers or claims for damages arising from employer-employee relations; Article 217
is to be applied the way it is worded. The exclusive original jurisdiction of a labor arbiter
is therein provided for explicitly. It means, it can only mean, that a court of first instance
judge then, a regional trial court judge now, certainly acts beyond the scope of the
authority conferred on him by law when he entertained the suit for damages, arising
from picketing that accompanied a strike.
The Supreme Court, thus, granted the writ of certiorari, and nullified and set
aside the 20 July1982 order issued by the court a quo. It granted the writ of prohibition,
and enjoined the Judge of said court, or whoever acts in his behalf in the RTC to which
this case is assigned, from taking any further action on the civil case (Civil Case 716
[2751]), except for the purpose of dismissing it. It also made permanent the restraining
order issued on 5 August 1982.
The first and fundamental duty of courts, in our judgment, is to apply the law.
Construction and interpretation come only after it has been demonstrated that
application is impossible or inadequate without them.

National Federation of Labor (NFL) v. Eisma

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

National Federation of Labor (NFL) v. Eisma

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

National Federation of Labor (NFL) v. Eisma

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

L-61236 January 31, 1984

Nothing becomes clearer, therefore, than the meritorious character of this

You might also like