205

CEBU PORT LABOR UNION VS. STATES MARINE CORP.

(1957) It appears that M/V Bisayas, formerly owned by Elizalde
& Co, was sold to the States Marine Corporation and
G.R. No. L-9350 | 1957-05-20
later purchased by the Royal Lines, Inc., which renamed
it the M/V Melliza.
Subject: RA 875 has limited the jurisdiction of the CIR to
The case was originally appealed by the respondents to
specific cases; 3- year period allowed by the corporation
the Court of Appeals but the latter certified the same to
law is only for the purpose of winding up its affairs;
the Supreme Court on the ground that it involves a
Decision cannot be enforced against those not made
question of jurisdiction.
proper parties to the case
Held:
Facts:
RA 875 has limited the jurisdiction of the CIR to specific
In 1953, the Cebu Port Labor Union (CBLU), a duly
cases
registered labor association, filed a petition with the CFI
Cebu for "recognition of stevedoring service and
1. Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 103 granting
injunction" against the States Marine Corporation (SMC)
"broad" jurisdiction to the Court of Industrial Relations
and respondents (Tura et al.). The petition claimed CBLU
(CIR) was curtailed by the passage of Republic Act No.
was awarded a contract for the exclusive right of loading
875, known as the Industrial Peace Act , approved on
and unloading of the cargoes of the vessel M/V Bisayas
June 17, 1953, so as to limit the jurisdiction of the CIR to
formerly owned by Elizalde & Co., though at the time of
certain specific cases to the exclusion of the others.
the filing of the petition it was owned and operated by
SMC.
2. The jurisdiction of the CIR has been limited to the
following cases: (1) when the labor dispute affects an
M/V Bisayas would soon resume its voyage and it came
industry which is indispensable to the national interest
to the knowledge of CBLU that the stevedoring work will
and is so certified by the President to the industrial
be given by SMC to the other respondents in violation of
court; (2) when the controversy refers to minimum
the agreement between Mr. Gotianuy, Manager of SMC,
wage under the Minimum Wage Law; (c) when it
and Mr. Cababajay, President of CBLU. CBLU, therefore,
involves hours of employment under the Eight-Hour
prayed that a writ of preliminary injunction be issued
Labor Law; and (4) when it involves an unfair labor
against SMU.
practice.
CFI Cebu ordered ex parte the issuance of the writ of
3. The present controversy is not one of the cases
preliminary injunction. On the Sheriff's return of service
enumerated above cognizable by the Court of Industrial
of the writ of injunction, there was a note of this tenor:
Relations. Hence, the CFI acted rightly in maintaining
"States Marine Corp. was dissolve on Oct. 17, 1952"
that it had jurisdiction to try and decide this case.
Respondents (Tura et al.) filed a motion to dismiss on
3- year period allowed by the corporation law is only
the ground that the CFI has no jurisdiction over the
for the purpose of winding up its affairs
subject matter of the action since the case involves an
action of a labor union against management and
4. CBLU seeks to enforce the stevedoring agreement
therefore falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
entered into by CBLU and the Elizalde & Co. and
Court of Industrial Relations (CIR).
subsequently enforced and continued by SMC.
However, when the petition was filed on September 12,
The CFI denied the motion to dismiss and ruled that it
1953, the States Marine Corporation was no longer in
had jurisdiction over the case. After trial, the CFI
existence.
recognized CBLU as the party with authority to render
services of loading and unloading the cargoes on the
5. CBLU relied on the provision of Section 77 of the
M/V Melliza (formerly the M/V Bisayas). The CFI found
Corporation Law in its stand to include the said
that Mr. Joseph Gotianuy, President of the Royal Lines
corporation as party respondent. Said Section 77 reads:
(the company operating the M/V Melliza) agreed
verbally to award the stevedoring work to CBLU. Such
"SEC. 77. Every corporation whose charter expires by its
agreement was made orally because it was not the
own limitation or is annulled by forfeiture or otherwise,
practice to put such kind of agreement in writing.
or whose corporate existence for other purposes is
Document1 Page 1 of 2
 205
terminated in any other manner, shall nevertheless be
continued as a body corporate for three years after the
time when it would have been so dissolved, for the
purpose of prosecuting and defending suits by or
against it and of enabling it gradually to settle and close
its affairs, to dispose of and convey its property and to
divide its capital stock, but not for the purpose of
continuing the business for which it was established."

6. The idea clearly manifested in the limitation "but not

for the purpose of continuing the business for which it
was established" is that the 3- year period allowed by
the corporation law is only for the purpose of winding
up its affairs. It appearing that States Marine
Corporation was already dissolved at the time said
petition was filed, and the vessel subject of the
agreement having changed hands, [SMC] cannot be
compelled now to respect such agreement specially
considering the fact that it cannot even be made a party
to this suit (Sec. 1, Rule 3, of the Rules of Court).

Decision cannot be enforced against those not made

proper parties to the case

7. CBLU contends that it seeks the enforcement of the

agreement entered into by Joseph Gotianuy as manager
of the Royal Lines, Inc. We must bear in mind the
provision of Section 7 of Rule 3, regarding indispensable
parties, and that the Royal Lines, Inc., has not been
made a party to this case. The decision making the
award in favor of CBLU [not] enforceable against the
States Marine Corporation cannot now be altered to suit
CBLU's defense by interpreting it to include those who
should have been the real parties in interest.

Document1 Page 2 of 2