Petitioners assail the actuation of respondent judge in assuming jurisdiction over a complaint for injunction intended to prohibit acts of picketing in connection with a strike and in issuing a restraining order without hearing to refrain them from delivering and displaying defamatory and libelous speeches and placards intended to disturb and cause nuisance to the students and faculty members holding classes. They contend that it was the Court of Industrial relations and not the Court of First Instance that had authority to act on such complaint as the subject matter of the controversy involves unfair labor practice and claims for overtime and minimum wages filed earlier with the Court of Industrial Relations. Respondent judge justified his acts by stating that the action for injunction was filed under the Rules of Court and not under Republic Act No. 875 which does not apply to non-stock, non-profit educational institutions as the petitioner. Oral argument was had on December 19, 1970. The matter was threreafter submitted for decision. No further pleading having been submitted nor any inquiry made as to the status of the case since then, the Court, in July 1977 required the parties to move but neither petitioners nor private respondents informed the Court as to what had transpired in the proceeding had before the now defunct Court of Industrial Realtions. On August 9, 1977, private respondents moved to dismiss the case in view of subsequent developments that occurred. Petitioners did not respond.

The Supreme Court, in view of the academic nature of the controversy, dismissed the petition.

1. CERTIORARI; DISMISSAL; PETITION MOOT AND ACADEMIC. — A petition for certiorari for certiorari will be dismissed when the nature of the controversy has bcome moot and academic.

This certiorari and prohibition proceeding was instituted by petitioners Rogelio Lafiguera and the Don Bosco Technical Institute Employees Organization. It assailed the actuation of respondent Judge V. M. Ruiz of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XV, 1 in assuming jurisdiction over a complaint for injunction intended to prohibit acts of picketing in connection with a strike. 2 It was further alleged that a restraining order was thereafter immediately issued without a hearing. 3 More specifically, petitioner labor organization was ordered by respondent Judge to refrain from delivering defamatory, libelous and malicious speeches through a transistorized radio system, from displaying defamatory and libelous placards and from committing the alleged unlawful acts intended to "disturb, disrupt, unsettle and cause nuisance to the students and faculty members holding classes [therein]." 4 There was an urgent motion to dismiss the complaint as well as to reconsider the restraining order, petitioners stressing the lack of jurisdiction of respondent Judge "over the subject matter of the controversy because the same involves unfair labor practices and claims for overtime and minimum wages filed weeks earlier before the Court of Industrial Relations." 5 Then came the allegation that there was a notice of strike before the Department of Labor, a petition for overtime and minimum wages filed before the defunct Court of Industrial Relations and the charge for unfair labor practice still pending therein. 6 Respondent Judge, however, was unmoved by such a plea maintaining his power to act. 7 What was a worse, according to petitioners, notwithstanding the lapse of five days from the issuance of the restraining order, respondent Judge posed the threat of contempt action against petitioners. The principal contention, to repeat, was that the Court of Industrial Relations and not the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction to act on such complaint.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

In the answer of respondents the jurisdiction of respondent Judge was sought to be justified by the allegation that the action for injunction was not filed under Republic Act 875 but under the Rules of Court. Mention was likewise made that there was an implied admission of the illegal acts committed by petitioners during the picketing. There was no denial about the existence of at least two labor cases pending in the Court of Industrial Relations, but it was alleged that the parties of record were not identical. Moreover, it was stressed that Republic Act 875 should not be made to apply to respondent Don Bosco Technical Institute as it "is a non-stock, non-profit educational institution." 8 It was then asserted that not only private respondents as members of the faculty of the Don Bosco Technical Institute, but 75 other faculty members who have joined as parties plaintiffs in the action for injunction have suffered and will continue to suffer damages by way of loss of class hours, worry, anxiety and peril to life and limb if there were no restraining order issued by respondent Judge to prevent the disturbance of classes, the obstruction to free passage from the Don Bosco Technical Institute and the threats of bodily harm to the faculty members and the student body who desire to enter the premises. The prayer was for the dismissal of the petition.

Thereafter, the petition was argued orally on December 16, 1970, with counsel for petitioners being given a fifteen-day period within which to submit additional documents in support of the petition. Except for a copy of an urgent motion for contempt filed by private respondents no other pleading was submitted by petitioners. The matter was then submitted for decision.

Since that time, no further pleading had been submitted nor any inquiry made as to the status of the case. This Court therefore, on July 13, 1977, resolved to require the parties to move in the premises, considering that as had happened in labor controversies, the passage of time had resulted in such disputes having been settled or in the labor tribunal having disposed of the matter in litigation. In this particular case, neither petitioners nor private respondents had informed the Court as to what had transpired in the proceeding had before the now defunct Court of Industrial Relations.

A responsive pleading to the above resolution was filed by private respondents on August 9, 1977 alleging: "1. That respondents submit that the instant case has already become moot and academic in view of subsequent developments, and the general order issued by the President after proclamation of martial law; 2. That in view thereof, respondents feel that the instant case should now be dismissed." 9 Counsel for petitioners was duly served, but until this date, no attention apparently had been paid to such resolution. Implicit in such inaction is the academic nature of this controversy, as noted by respondents.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

WHEREFORE, this petition is dismissed for being moot and academic. No costs.

Barredo, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr. and Santos, JJ., concur.

Antonio, J., is on leave.

Endnotes:

---

1. The private respondents were: Maria Francisca Geronimo, Marcela Magsino, Marita Santiago and Iluminada Santos.

2. Petition, par. 3.

3. Ibid, par. 4.

4. Ibid, pars. 3 and 4.

5. Ibid, par. 5.

6. Ibid.

7. Ibid, par. 6.

8. Answer, par. 12.

9. Motion to Dismiss the Case dated August 6, 1977.