|
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Jurisdiction
By Dominador A. Almirante
Labor case digest
On Feb. 5, 1997, petitioners Eduardo J. Mariño Jr., Ma. Melvyn P. Alamis and the UST Faculty Union (USTFU) filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila a complaint for injunction and damages with prayer for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order over the use of the USTFU office.
Earlier, respondent Gil Gamilla and some faculty members of UST filed a petition with the Med-Arbitration Unit of the Department of Labor and Employment seeking to stop the holding of the USTFU election. Can the RTC assume jurisdiction over this earlier case?
Ruling: No.
The propriety of padlocking the union’s office—the relief sought by the petitioner in the civil case—is interwoven with the issue of legitimacy of the assumption of office by the respondents, in light of the violation of the union’s constitution and by-laws, which was then pending before the Med-Arbiter.
Necessarily, therefore, the trial court has no jurisdiction over the case, in so far as the prayer for the removal of the padlocks and the issuance of an injunctive writ is concerned.
It is a settled rule that jurisdiction, once acquired, continues until the case is finally terminated. The petition with the Med-Arbiter was filed ahead of the complaint in the civil case before the RTC. As such, when the petitioners filed their complaint a quo, jurisdiction over the injunction and restraining order prayed for had already been lodged with the Med-Arbiter.
The removal of padlocks and the access to the office premises is necessarily included in petitioners’ prayer to enjoin respondents from performing acts pertaining to union officers and on behalf of the union. In observance of the principle of adherence of jurisdiction, it is clear that the RTC should not have exercised jurisdiction over the priovisional reliefs prayed for in the complaint.
A review of the complaint shows that petitioners disclosed the existence of the petition pending before the Med-Arbiter and even attached a copy thereof. The trial court was also aware of the decision of the Med-Arbiter, dated Feb. 11, 1997, declaring the supposed union officers’ election void ab initio and ordering respondents to cease and desist from discharging the duties and functions of the legitimate officers of the USTFU.
The trial court even obtained a copy of the said decision two days after its promulgation. Still, it continued hearing on the application for injunction and eventually issued the assailed orders. (Eduardo J. Mariño Jr. et. Al. versus Gil Gamilla et. Al., G.R. No. 132400, Jan. 13, 2005)
For Bisaya stories from Cebu. Click here. (July 29, 2006 issue)
Write letter to the editor.Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board.Click here. |
|
[return to top]
[home]
[network page]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
SUPERBALITA
WEEKEND
|
