National Union of Bank Employees vs. Judge Alfredo Lazaro, et al, G.R. No.

56431,

Facts:

The CBTC entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the Union representing the rank-and-file
employees. The agreement was to be effective until June 30, 1980, with automatic renewal clause until
the parties execute a new agreement. On May 30, 1980, the Union submitted to the bank management
some proposals for renegotiation of the CBA. But the next day the bank suspended negotiations with
the union because the bank had entered into a merger with the Bank of the Philippine Islands, which
assumed all assets and liabilities of CBTC. The Union filed with the Court of First Instance a complaint for
specific performance, damages and preliminary injunction against the CBTC and the BPI. The Court
dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Is the dismissal correct?

Ruling:

The dismissal order is sustained. The case is an unfair labor practice controversy within the original and
exclusive jurisdiction of the labor arbiters and the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the National Labor
Relations Commission. The claim against the BPI for allegedly inducing the CBTC to violate the existing
collective bargaining agreement in the process of renegotiation consists mainly of the civil aspect of the
unfair labor practice charge referred to under Article 247 of the Labor Code.

Under Article 247 of the Code, "the civil aspects of all cases involving unfair labor practices, which may
include claims for damages and other affirmative relief, shall be under the jurisdiction of the labor
arbiters." The claimed injury as a consequence of tort allegedly committed by BPI and CBTC under
Article 1314 of the Civil Code does not necessarily give the court jurisdiction to try the damage suit.
Jurisdiction is conferred by law and not necessarily by the nature of the action. Civil controversies are
not the exclusive domain of courts. The fact that the BPI is not a party to the collective bargaining
agreement, for which it cannot be sued for unfair labor practice at the time of the action, cannot bestow
on the trial court the jurisdiction it does not have.

Neither does the fact that the BPI was not an employer at the time the act was committed abate a
recourse to the labor arbiter. It should be noted that the BPI assumed all the assets and liabilities of the
CBTC