4.citibank v ca

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 108961. November 27, 1998]

CITIBANK, N. A.,  petitioners, vs. COUR COURT T OF APPA!" #T$%r& '%v%(%o) '%v%(%o)*, *, AN' CITI CI TIBA BANK NK INT INTG GRA RAT T' GU GUAR AR'" '" !A !ABO BOR R A!! !!IA IANC NC  #C #CIG IG!A !A** "GATUPA "GAT UPA"+F" "+F" !OCA! C-APTR No. 19/, respondents. 'CI"ION PAR'O, J . .

T$e C(e

The case before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the dec decision of the Court of Appeas!"# and and its its reso resou uti tion on den$ den$in ing g !%# reconsideration & ruing that it is the abor   tribuna& not the regiona tria court& that has 'urisdiction over the co(paint for in'unction and da(ages fied b$ petitioner with the regiona tria court)

T$e F3(

In "*+,& Citibank and - Toro Securit$ Agenc$& Agenc$& Inc) .hereafter - Toro/ entered into a contract for the atter to provide securit$ and protective services to safeguard and protect the bank0s pre(ises& situated at +12" 3aseo de Ro4as& 5akati& 5etro 5etro 5ania) 6nder the contract& - Toro obigated itsef to provide the services of securit$ guards to safeguard and protect the pre(ises and propert$ of Citibank against theft& robber$ or an$ other  unawfu acts co((itted b$ an$ person or persons& and assu(ed responsibiit$ for osses and7or da(ages that (a$ be incurred b$ Citibank due to or as a resut of the negigence of  - Toro Toro or an$ of its assigned personne), Citibank renewed the securit$ contract with - Toro $ear$ unti "**8) On Apri %%& "**8& the contract between Citibank and - Toro Toro e4pired) On 9une 1& "**8& respondent Citibank Integrated :uards ;abor Aianceoard .NC5>/ a re?uest for preventive (ediation citing Citibank as respondent therein giving as issues for preventive (ediation the foowing@ a/ 6nfair abor practice  b/ Dis(issa of union officers7(e(bers officers7(e(bers and

c/ 6nion busting) On 9une "8& "**8& petitioner Citibank served on - Toro a written notice that the  bank woud not renew an$(ore the service agree(ent with the atter) Si(utaneous$& Citibank hired another securit$ agenc$& the :oden 3$ra(id Securit$ Agenc$& to render  securit$ services at Citibank0s pre(ises) On the sa(e date& 9une "8& "**8& respondent CI:;A fied a (anifestation with the  NC5> that it was converting its re?uest for preventive (ediation into a notice of strike for faiure of the parties to reach a (utua$ acceptabe sette(ent of the issues& which it foowed with a suppe(enta notice of strike aeging as suppe(enta issue the (ass dis(issa of a union officers and (e(bers) On 9une ""& "**8& securit$ guards of - Toro who were repaced b$ guards of the :oden 3$ra(id Securit$ Agenc$ considered the non