Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-4610 August 24, 1951
PACIFIC CUSTOMS RO!ERAGE COMPAN", INC., petitioner,
vs.
INTER-ISLAN# #OC!MEN AN# LAOR UNION $%& T'E COURT OF IN#USTRIAL
RELATIONS, respondents.
Ramon B. de los Santos for petitioner.
Augurio Camu for respondent Inter-Island Dockmen and Labor Union.
Arsenio I. Martine for respondent Court of Industrial Relations.
AUTISTA ANGELO, J.(
This is a petition for certiorari seeking the annulent of an order of the Court of
industrial Relations issued on !anuar" ##, $%&$, ordering petitioner 'to pa" all the
(ages due and deandable in favor of the petitioning labor union until at present, and
that a" be due fro tie to tie for the services that a" be rendered during the
pendenc" of the ain case,' and of the order of the court in banc issued on )ebruar"
$*, $%&$, den"ing petitioner+s otion for reconsideration.
,n -eceber $%, $%&., respondent /nter /sland -ocken and 0abor 1nion filed a
petition in the Court of /ndustrial Relations against the Pacific Custos Brokerage
Copan", /nc., 2Case No. &3#456, pra"ing, aong other things, that said copan" be
ordered to desist fro disissing the ebers of said union, (hich is a part" to a labor
contract e7ecuted on !une $, $%&., the ters of (hich are to e7pire on -eceber 3$,
$%&., to turn over to the treasurer of the union all dues and fees belonging to it that
(ere collected under said agreeent and (ere (ith held b" the copan", and to
reinstate (ith backpa" the (orkers allegedl" disissed or suspended (ithout 8ust
cause. 1nder section 9, of Coon(ealth Act No. $.3, as aended, a preliinar"
conference to discuss the issues involved (as held bet(een the parties. Mean(hile, a
otion (as filed b" the labor union pra"ing that its eplo"er the Pacific Custos
Brokerage Copan", /nc. be ordered to pa" the ebers of the union their
corresponding (ages for services rendered fro -eceber #3, $%&., to -eceber #%,
$%&., in the aggregate aount of P9,..., (hich (as allegedl" (ithheld b" it for certain
alleged daages caused b" said ebers for staging a strike in the onth of August,
$%&.. To this otion the copan" ob8ected alleging that the Court of )irst /nstance of
Manila issued in civil case No. $#:3:, entitled Pacific Custos Brokerage Copan",
/nc. !s. Pacific Custos Brokerage ;orkers 1nion, a (rit of garnishent, upon an e"
parte otion, (hich (as served b" the sheriff of Manila b" lev"ing upon the chattels,
goods, or one" that copan" then had in its possession belonging to the 1nion, for
(hich reason, it is claied, the Court of /ndustrial Relations had no 8urisdiction to
entertain the otion aboveentioned. After due hearing, at (hich both parties
appeared, the court, through his <onor, !udge Modesto Castillo, issued on !anuar" ##,
$%&$, the order the dispositive part of (hich appears =uoted in the earl" part of this
decision. A otion for reconsideration having been filed b" the petitioning copan", the
sae (as denied b" the court in banc, on )ebruar" $*, $%&$. <ence this petition.
The issue before us is (hether petitioner can be copelled b" the Court of /ndustrial
Relations to pa" the (ages of the ebers of the lnter /sland -ocken and 0abor
1nion in spite of the (rit of garnishent issued b" the Court of )irst /nstance of Manila
in civil case No. $#:3: directing the sheriff of Manila to lev" upon the one"s of the
Pacific Custos Brokerage ;orkers 1nion (hich are in the possession, of the herein
petitioner, Pacific Custo Brokerage Copan", /nc.
Petitioner contends that the =uestion should be ans(ered in the negative for the reason
that the one"s needed to pa" the (ages of the ebers of the respondents union
having been garnished b" the orders of the Court of )irst /nstance of Manila, are in
custodia legis or under the authorit" and control of the court and cannot, therefore, be
controlled or other(ise dispose of b" the Court of /ndustrial Relations. /t is contended
that interference (ith said restraining order (ould be 'iproper, un8ust and
undeocratic'. But (e notice that this is sae arguent advanced b" petitioner before
the respondent court in its effort to frustrate the purpose of the otion of the labor
union, and the respondent court found said arguent untenable in vie( of the
provisions of article $>.: of the ne( Civil Code (hich provides?
0aborers+ (ages shall not be sub8ect to e7ecution or attachent. e7cept for
debts incurred for food, shelter, clothing and edical attendance.
;e find no error in this vie( of the respondent court. The provisions of the article above
=uoted are siple and clear and adit of no doubtful interpretation. /t provides that
'laborers+ (ages shall not to e7ecution or attachent, e7cept for debts incurred for food,
shelter, clothing and edical attendance'. Petitioner does not dispute that the one"
garnished is intended to pa" the (ages of the ebers of the labor union. There is
nothing to sho( that such one" (as garnished or attached for debts incurred for food,
shelter, clothing and edical attendance. The (rit of garnishent issued b" the court,
(hile it purports to include all one"s and properties belonging to the eplo"ing
copan", cannot, in an" anner, touch or affect (hat said copan" has in its
possession to pa" the (ages of its laborers pursuant to its contract (ith the or their
labor union (ithout contravening the letter and spirit of said article $>.:. ;hen,
1
therefore, the Court of )irst /nstance of Manila issued the oft4entioned (rit of
garnishent to be levied upon all one"s and properties of the eplo"ing copan", its
scope and effect could not have been e7tended to include the one" intended to pa"
the (ages of the ebers of the respondent labor union. /t is our considered opinion
that the respondent court correctl" interpreted the la( on the atter.
;e believe, ho(ever, that before the order of the respondent court can be enforced
there is need of lifting the garnishent levied upon the one" needed to pa" the (ages
in =uestion b" the presentation of a otion to that effect to the proper court, and it is
e7pected that such action (ill be taken b" the respondent labor union before enforcing
said order.
Petitioner+s contention that the otion filed b" the respondent union in the /ndustrial
Court should be denied for lack of legal basis because it is predicated on a labor
contract entered into bet(een the petitioner and the Pacific Custos Brokerage
;orkers 1nion and as such the rights and benefits flo(ing fro it cannot be taken
advantage of b" the ebers of the respondent union, (hile apparentl" tenable, has no
foundation in fact, it appearing that the ebers of the t(o labor unions are one and
the sae. @aid the Court of /ndustrial Relations on the atter?
/n the hearing of the above4entitled case, ho(ever, it has been established that
the ebers of the Pacific Custos Brokerage ;orkers+ 1nion are the sae
laborers no( ebers of the petitioner union. Records sho( that (hile
respondent entered into an agreeent (ith the Pacific Custos Brokerage
;orkers+ 1nion, an apparentl" different union fro the petitioner in the above4
entitled case, "et it cannot be denied that the signatories thereto are the sae
laborers no( ebers of the /nter4/sland -ocken and 0abor 1nion. /t is
evident, therefore, that respondent on !une $, $%&., e7ecuted an agreeent
(ith a group of its laborers nubering ore than thirt", and (hether at the tie
the" st"led theselves as ebers of the Custos Brokerage ;orkers+ 1nion
or as an affiliate of the /nter4/sland -ocken and 0abor 1nion is of no oent,
the fact reains that the" are the sae persons involved in the dispute.
;herefore, the petition is hereb" disissed, (ith costs against the petitioner.
2