SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-34081. August 19, 1982.]
PHILIPPINE SUGAR INSTITUTE (PHILSUGIN), Petitioner, v. ASSOCIATION OF PHILSUGIN EMPLOYEES (ASPEM) and FRANCISCO L. LIMSON, and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Respondents.
Office of the Gov’t Corporate Counsel for Petitioner.
Clemente M. Soriano for Respondents.
SYNOPSIS
The Philippine Sugar Institute appealed from a resolution on its motion for reconsideration which sustained the claim of the Association of Philsugin Employees that a complaint for unfair labor practice should be heard against it for entering into a return-to-work agreement with a rival labor union, also composed of its employees. The appealed order was assailed as having been issued beyond the scope of respondent court’s authority in view of its function being purely governmental in character.
The Supreme Court, considering that the Philippine Sugar Institute has been abolished under Presidential Decree No. 388 and absorbed by the then newly created Philippine Sugar Commission, found no useful purpose for passing on the merits of the appeal as it may be assumed thereby that the respondent union had likewise caused to exist.
Case dismissed for being moot and academic.
The Supreme Court, considering that the Philippine Sugar Institute has been abolished under Presidential Decree No. 388 and absorbed by the then newly created Philippine Sugar Commission, found no useful purpose for passing on the merits of the appeal as it may be assumed thereby that the respondent union had likewise caused to exist.
Case dismissed for being moot and academic.
SYLLABUS
REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; APPEALS; DISMISSAL FOR BEING MOOT AND ACADEMIC. — Where the petitioner Philippine Sugar Institute was abolished and absorbed by the Philippine Sugar Commission by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 388 and the respondent union, the Association of Philsugin Employees may likewise be deemed to have ceased to exist, the appeal is dismissed for being moot and academic as no useful purpose would be served by passing on the merits of the case.
D E C I S I O N
FERNANDO, C.J.:
This is a petition for review from a decision of the defunct Court of Industrial Relations by the Philippine Sugar Institute from its resolution on a motion for reconsideration, which in effect sustained the claim of private respondent, Association of Philsugin Employees, that an unfair labor practice having been committed by petitioner, a complaint to that effect should be duly heard. The alleged act imputed to it was that of entering into a return-to-work agreement with a rival labor union also composed of its employees. This was done during the pendency of a petition by respondent Union for the holding of a certification election. The appeal was primarily based on the lack of jurisdiction of respondent Court of Industrial Relations in view of its function being governmental in character and, therefore, beyond the scope of its authority.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
The need for passing upon such a contention is obviated by the fact that under Presidential Decree No. 388, the Philippine Sugar Institute was abolished and absorbed by the then newly created Philippine Sugar Commission. 1 It may be assumed, therefore, that respondent Union, the Association of Philsugin Employees, has likewise ceased to exist. No useful purpose would be served then by passing on the merits of the appeal.
WHEREFORE, the case is dismissed for being moot and academic.
Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, and Escolin, JJ., concur.
Barredo, J., took no part.
The need for passing upon such a contention is obviated by the fact that under Presidential Decree No. 388, the Philippine Sugar Institute was abolished and absorbed by the then newly created Philippine Sugar Commission. 1 It may be assumed, therefore, that respondent Union, the Association of Philsugin Employees, has likewise ceased to exist. No useful purpose would be served then by passing on the merits of the appeal.
WHEREFORE, the case is dismissed for being moot and academic.
Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, and Escolin, JJ., concur.
Barredo, J., took no part.
Endnotes:
1. Presidential Decree No. 388 was issued in 1974. It was amended thereafter by Presidential Decree No. 775 (1975) and Presidential Decree No. 1192 (1977).
