G.R. No. L-10080; April 30, 1957
DEE CHO LUMBER WORKERS’ UNION, (NLU), petitioner, vs. DEE CHO LUMBER COMPANY, respondent.

FACTS

On May 21, 1955, the petitioner union filed a petition with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR). It alleged that on February 12, 1949, it entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the respondent company. Article II of this agreement provided that each employee with at least one year of service is entitled to ten days of vacation leave with full pay per annum. The petitioner claimed the respondent violated this agreement by not granting the ten-day vacation leave for each year of service rendered up to February 12, 1955, and that this failure caused an industrial dispute that could lead to a strike or lockout. The petitioner prayed for the CIR to order the respondent to grant the claimed vacation leaves. In its answer, the respondent admitted the existence of the agreement but alleged that the vacation leave claimed had already been paid, and thus the petition should be dismissed. After a hearing, Associate Judge Juan L. Lanting dismissed the complaint, ruling that the CIR lacked jurisdiction to enforce the collective bargaining agreement under Republic Act No. 875 (the Industrial Peace Act). The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CIR in banc, prompting this appeal by certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Industrial Relations possesses jurisdiction over a case involving the enforcement of a collective bargaining contract under Republic Act No. 875 .

RULING

No. The Court of Industrial Relations correctly dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order. It held that the broad powers of compulsory arbitration previously vested in the CIR under Commonwealth Act No. 103 were curtailed by Republic Act No. 875 . The jurisdiction of the CIR under the new law is confined to specific cases: (1) labor disputes in industries indispensable to the national interest certified by the President; (2) controversies regarding the minimum wage under Republic Act No. 602 ; (3) cases involving hours of employment under Commonwealth Act No. 444 ; and (4) cases involving unfair labor practices under Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 875 . The enforcement of a collective bargaining agreement, as sought in this case, does not fall under any of these categories. The policy of Republic Act No. 875 is to encourage the settlement of disputes through collective bargaining and direct negotiation between the parties, not through compulsory arbitration by the CIR. Therefore, the CIR had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.