FACTS: Sometime in May 1986, the UST Faculty Union (USTFU) entered into an

initial collective bargaining agreement with the University of Santo Tomas (UST)
wherein UST undertook to provide USTFU with a free office space at Room 302 of
its Health Center Building. On September 21, 1996, the officers and directors of
USTFU scheduled a general membership meeting on October 5, 1996 for the
election of the union officers. However, respondent Gamilla and some faculty
members filed a Petition with the Med-Arbitration Unit of the DOLE seeking to
stop the holding of the USTFU election. Med-Arbiter Tomas Falconitin issued a
temporary restraining order (TRO) in Case No. NCR-OD-M-9610-001, enjoining the
holding of the election of the USTFU officers and directors. However, denying the
TRO they themselves sought, Gamilla and some of the faculty members present in
the 4 October 1996 faculty convocation proceeded with the election of the USTFU
officers.

Petitioners filed with the DOLE a petition for prohibition, injunction, with prayer
for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, seeking to invalidate
the election held on October 4, 1996. Two months later, UST and USTFU,
represented by Gamilla and his co-officers, entered into a collective bargaining
agreement (CBA) for a period of five (5) years from 1 June 1996 up to 31 May
2001. Med-Arbiter issued TRO enjoing Gamilla and his fellow officers to "cease
and desist from performing any and all acts pertaining to the duties and functions
of the officers and directors" of USTFU.

On January 27, 1997, at around eleven in the morning (11:00 a.m.), respondents
Gamilla, Cardenas and Aseron, with some other persons, served a letter of even
date on petitioners Mariño and Alamis, demanding that the latter vacate the
premises located at Room 302, Health Center Building, UST—the Office of
USTFU. However, only the office messenger was in the office at the time. After
coercing the office messenger to step out of the office, Gamilla and company
padlocked the door leading to the union’s office.

Petitioners filed with the RTC of Manila a Complaint for injunction and damages
with a prayer for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order over the
use of the USTFU office. Whereas, the respondent sought the dismissal of the
complaint and bought the matter to this court via a special civil action for
certiorari.
ISSUE: Whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the case filed by petitioners?

HELD: Yes, the case before the trial court, Civil Case No. 97-81928
entitled Eduardo J. Mariño, Jr. et al. v. Gil Gamilla, et al., is a simple case for
damages, with an accompanying application for injunction. The complaint essentially
bears the following allegations: that despite an outstanding temporary restraining
order prohibiting the holding of an election of officers, respondent Gamilla and
others proceeded to hold a purported election; that there was a case pending
before the DOLE questioning the validity of the supposed election; and, that
respondent Gamilla with two other persons (later learned to be respondents Aseron
and Cardenas) compelled the office messenger to vacate the premises of the
USTFU office, and thereafter padlocked the room. Petitioners alleged
respondents’ act of padlocking the office was without lawful basis, and had
prevented them from entering the office premises, thereby denying them access
to personal effects, documents and records needed in the on-going cases both in
the DOLE and in the complaint a quo, and ultimately precluding the union from
serving its members.

Fundamentally, the civil case a quo seeks two reliefs¾one is for the removal of the
padlocks on the office door and restraining respondents from blocking petitioners’
access to the premises, while the other is for the recovery of moral and exemplary
damages.

Thus, unlike the NLRC which is explicitly vested with the jurisdiction over claims
for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages, the BLR is not
specifically empowered to adjudicate claims of such nature arising from intra-union
or inter-union disputes. In fact, Art. 241 of the Labor Code ordains the separate
institution before the regular courts of criminal and civil liabilities arising from
violations of the rights and conditions of union membership. The Court has
consistently held that where no employer-employee exists between the parties and
no issue is involved which may be resolved by reference to the Labor Code, other
labor statutes, or any collective bargaining agreement, it is the regional trial court
that has jurisdiction.

Administrative agencies are tribunals of limited jurisdiction and as such, can

exercise only those powers which are specifically granted to them by their enabling
statutes. Consequently, matters over which they are not granted authority are
beyond their competence. While the trend is towards vesting administrative bodies
with the power to adjudicate matters coming under their particular specialization,
to ensure a more knowledgeable solution of the problems submitted to them, this
should not deprive the courts of justice their power to decide ordinary cases in
accordance with the general laws that do not require any particular expertise or
training to interpret and apply. In their complaint in the civil case, petitioners do
not seek any relief under the Labor Code but the payment of a sum of money as
damages on account of respondents’ alleged tortuous conduct. The action is within
the realm of civil law and, hence, jurisdiction over the case belongs to the regular
courts.