Print Feb 19 Labor

8/12/2019 Print Feb 19 Labor

1/35

PART EIGHTPICKETING

A. Definition Law Dictionary & Bases 2! "#$% Constittion Art. III' (ec. )

B. Natre an* Pr+ose of Pic,et Line

Sta. Rosa Coca-Cola Plant Employees Union v. Coca-Cola Bottlers,Philippines, Inc., 512 SCRA !" #$"%!-2 (CRA )! CALLE/0' (R% /anary 2)' 211

NATRE This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision of theCA, which affirmed the ruling of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter

3ACT(- The nionis the so4e an* e5c4si6e #ar7ainin7representative of theregular paid workers and the monthl paid non-ccommission earningemploees of the comopan! individual petitioners are union

officers,directors and shop stewards!

- The union and the compan entered into a ! year CBA! upon thee5+iration, the union told the compan that the wanted to ne7otiatethe terms! the union insisted that representatives from A4yansa n7 87anyon n7 Coca Co4a be a44owe* to o#ser6e the C"A meetings! thecompan refse* to a44owalansa to o#ser6eand an i8+asseensued!union officers, directors and stewards filed a notice of strricewith NC#"based on *ea*4oc,on C"A and nfair 4a#or +racticearising from thecompan$s refusal to bargain! the grounds were ammended to unfair laborpractice for the compan$s refsa4 to #ar7ain in 7oo* fait9 andinterference with the e%ercise if their ri79t to se4f:or7ani;ation!

- pending the notice to strike, the union decided to participate in a 8assaction #y a4yansa in front of t9e co8+any


2/35

stri,e are +resentin this case9 (:8 members of petitioner ;nion, whoserespective a++4ications for 4ea6e of a#senceon eptember 0(, (


3/35

Ins6lar 4i7e Ass6rance Co. 4t(, Employees v. Ins6lar 4i7e Ass6ranceCo. 4t(., !" SCRA 2 #"1%! (CRA 2)) CA(TR0% /anary !1' -@-

NATRE Appeal, b certiorari to review a decision and a resolution enbanc of the Court of 1ndustrial Relations dated August (?, (unctionagainst them as well as the ultimatum of the Companies giving them untilFune 0, (obs or else be replaced, the strikingemploees decided to call off their strike and to report back to work onFune 0, (ected @2 strikers with pending criminal charges! owever, allnon-strikers with pending criminal charges which arose from thebreakthrough incident were readmitted immediatel b the Companieswithout being re.uired to secure clearances from the fiscal$s office!ubse.uentl, when practicall all the strikers had secured clearances fromthe fiscal$s office, the Companies readmitted onl some but adamantlrefused readmission to 26 officials and members of the ;nions who weremost active in the strike, on the ground that the committed 3acts inimicalto the interest of the respondents,3 without however stating the specificacts allegedl committed! Among those who were refused readmission islorencio 1barra, president of the E; 1nsurance Eroup )orkers Gmploees Association-NAT;! ome 06 of the above number wereultimatel notified months later that the were being dismissedretroactivel as of Fune 0, (


4/35

been readmitted although there have been no formal dismissal noticesgiven to them!

I((E=( (! )*N an emploee ma be refused readmission because hecommitted acts inimical to the interest of the respondents when, as ;nionpresident, he advised the strikers that the could use force and violence tohave a successful picket and that picketing was precisel intended toprevent the non-strikers and compan clients and customers from enteringthe Companies$ buildings!

HELD (! N*Reasonin& ven if this were true, the record discloses that the +ic,et4ine 9a* #een 7enera44y +eacef4, and that inci*ents happened onlwhen manage8ent 8en 8a*e incrsions into an* trie* to #rea, t9e+ic,et 4ine.At an rate, with or without the advice of 1barra, +ic,etin7 isin9erent4y e5+4osi6e! or, as pointed out b one author, 3The +ic,et4ine i s an e5+4osi6e front, charged with the e8otions and fierce4oya4tiesof the union-management dispute! 1t ma be marked b colorfulna8e:ca44in7, inti8i*atin7 t9reats or s+ora*ic fi79ts between thepickets and those who pass the line!3 athews, Labor Relations and the

Law, p! ?70'! The picket line being the natural result of the respondents$unfair labor practice, 1barra$s misconduct is at most a misdemeanor whichis not a bar to reinstatement!'isposition ACC*RD1NEL+, the decision of the Court of 1ndustrialRelations dated August (?, (


5/35

Sec6rity Ban8 Employees Union v. Sec6rity Ban8 an( r6st Co., 2!SCRA 5$! #9:%

R+, F"LB #arch 0@, (unction to annul

3ACT(

1n a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminar in>unction, datedFanuar (7, (unction was sought, plaintiff, now respondent"ank, after incorporating and reproducing b reference what had been setforth stressing that such 3concerte* action' +ic,et or stri,e3 threatenedb both defendant NAT; and L## would 3be staged unless restrained3 bthe lower court and that in view 3of the sensitive and vulnerable characterof plaintiff$s business, substantial and irreparable damage and in>ur willbe suffered b plaintiff b reason of an concerted action or strike againstit before the matter can be heard on noticeB!!!!32(The praer was for a writof preliminar in>unction directed to defendants, their officers, members oragents from staging in front of or in the vicinit of plaintiff$s main office aswell as an of its branches, an strike or +ic,etin7 of w9ate6er ,in*orform *rin7 t9e e5istence or +en*ency of any *is+teor controversbetween them as to the affiliation, control and management of the localunion with the further plea that after a hearing on the merits, >udgment berendered declaring permanent the aforesaid in>unction!The complaint contains an admission, binding against respondent "ank,that such threatened 3concerted collective action and strike3 that ma bestaged b both the L## and the NAT; 3if carried out HwouldI constitute aviolation of the collective bargaining agreement!3 or it was there providede%pressl that the Local ;nion, 3its officers, agents and members agreethat for the duration of this agreement there shall be no strike, walkout,sitdowns, stoppage of work, strikes, bocotts, secondar bocotts,smpathetic or general strikes, nor an acts of similar nature which wouldinterfere with the normal business operations and work schedules of the"ank, or picketing of an kind or form, however peaceful, and that it willnot otherwise permit, countenance, or suffer the e%istence or continuance


6/35

of an kind of those acts,3 e%cept in cases of unfair labor practice! 1s thismatter then +ro+er4y co7ni;a#4e b the 4ower cort, presided brespondent FudgeJ e 9o4* t9at it is not.

rom PAFLU v. an 20 to !ay "iew #otel$ %nc. v. &anila #otel 'orkersUnion,22there has been unwavering adherence to the principle that underthe 1ndustrial /eace Act, nfair 4a#or +ractice cases fall within thee%clusive competence of the Court of 1ndustrial Relations! 1n (epublic)avings !ank v. *ourt of %ndustrial (elations,26 it was held that thegrievance procedure provided b collective bargaining agreement must befollowed and that whatever obligation is incumbent on either managementor labor must be complied with! A failure to perform its dut b eitherpart amounts to a commission of an unfair labor practice! 3or collectivebargaining does not end with the e%ecution of an agreement! 1t is acontinuous process!327

1t being e%pressl provided in the 1ndustrial /eace Act that unfair laborpractice is committed b a labor union or its agent b its refusal 3tobargain collectivel with the emploer328and this Court having decided inthe Republic avings "ank case that collective bargaining does not endwith the e%ecution of an agreement, being a continuous process, the dut

to bargain necessaril imposing on the parties the obligation to live up tothe terms of such a collective bargaining agreement if entered into, it isundeniable that non-compliance therewith constitutes an unfair laborpractice! 1t follows that the complaint of respondent "ank in this case,tested b the allegations therein made, should have been filed with theCourt of 1ndustrial Relations! Deference to a long line of decisions fromPAFLU v. an, une.uivocal in language and imperative in tone, calls for aruling that respondent Fudge acted without >urisdiction on the matter!0! The point might be raised however, that from +ee *ho Lumber 'orkers,Union v. +ee *ho Lumber *o!,2?reling on the PAFLU v. an decision, thisCourt has been committed to the view that ris*iction o6er a casein6o46in7 t9e enforce8ent of a co44ecti6e #ar7ainin7 contract restsnot with the Court of 1ndustrial Relations but with a Cort of 3irstInstance! uch a principle does not call for application in the present casein view of the Republic avings "ank doctrine, which if adhered to, as itought to be, would result in labor litigations of this character beingsubmitted to the Court of 1ndustrial Relations! 1t would thus have theopportunit of availing itself of its e;pertise on 4a#or 8atters!That such a result is not to be deplored should be obvious to all, for noagenc is better e.uipped b training, e%perience, and background tohandle labor controversies than the Court of 1ndustrial Relations! Theobservation of Fustice F! "! L! Rees, though sub>ect to .ualifications, stillpossesses relevance! As noted b him, the re74ar corts 3have notintervened in labor cases Hsince (unctions attests to the fact!3 2@ or it is

undeniable that in>unctions in labor disputes under the 1ndustrial /eace Actare not favored, to put it at its mildest! The ma issue onl after a strictand rigorous compliance with the statutor re.uisites!

2! The contention is earnestl pressed b respondent "ank, that theprovisions of the 1ndustrial /eace Act do not call for application there beingno labor dispute, in which case it suffices to meet the 4ess strin7entreFire8ents of t9e R4es of Cortfor the issuance of an in>unction! 1tis to be admitted that as e%pounded in its answer and memorandum, theargument has a ring of plausibilit! 1t cannot, however, carr the heavburden of persuasion!

or one thing, the ver allegations of the complaint of respondent "ank onwhich respondent Fudge acted as well as its praer betraed whatundoubtedl was its well-founded fear that a strike was in the offing, astrike undoubtedl to be participated in b members of the local unionindependentl of whether the L## or the NAT; would emerge victorious! 1twould thus be far-fetched to characterie such an impasse as lacking theelements of a labor dispute! That is to fail to accord recognition to realit!1t is true that respondent Ban, is in t9e nen6ia#4e +osition of an

innocent #ystan*ercaught in the cross:fire! 1t enlists one$s smpath,but it cannot with reason assert that its difficulties are in no wa connectedwith a 4a#or contro6ersy! "esides, it is now too 4ate to consider as4ac,in7 t9e e4e8ents of a 4a#or *is+tea situation where ri6a4 nions6ie for s+re8acy! This court has so indicated in at least two decisions,!ala-ueon rans. Labor Union v. &u/o0Palma2


7/35

Court can issue a restraining order against union members who plan tohold a strike even if the same ma appear to be illegal! 3 That is so in viewof the unmistakable language emploed in the 1ndustrial /eace Act, withreference to strikes! T9e stattory co88an* on +ic,etin7 4i,ewiseca44s for a si8i4ar *ec4aration.The obstacle that bars respondent "ankfrom attaining its ob>ective to bar all picketing is indeed too formidable tosurmount! Also, even without such a categorical mandate e%pressed in the

Act, the reco7nition of +eacef4 +ic,etin7as a constittiona4 ri79tembraced in the freedom of e%pression, dating from the (


8/35

ortera v. CIR, "< P !5 #"%

/etitioners pras for the annulment of the order of the Court of 1ndustrialRelations dated ebruar 0(, (


9/35

Philippine Association o7 =ree 4a)or Unions v. Clori)el, 2" SCRA952 (CRA ) REE(' /BL% >arc9 2J' -@@

3ACT(- >etroBan,located at the ground floor of the e44in7ton B4*7 in 806/laa Calderon, Binon*o, #anila was +ic,ete* b the /hilippineAssociation of ree Labor ;nions &PA3L'! )ellington complained,however, that the picketers were annoyin74y #4oc,in7 the co88on+assa7eway of t9e #i4*in7, the only ingress and egress to the secondto the sixth floors! The other occupants demanded protection of theirpeaceful en>oment of and free access to and from, the premises leased bthem! e44in7ton c9ar7e* PA3Lof n*e interferencenot onl withits enjoyment of its property and business of leasing and administeringthesame but also with the businesses of the netra4 tenants!- Fudge Cloribel of the C1 of #anila issued an innctionagainst PA3L!/AL; filed the present petitionin the C, alleging that Fudge Cloribelacted without >urisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in issuing theorder, in violation of the 1ndustrial /eace Act! Now9ere in t9e co8+4aintwas t9ere an a44e7ation of t9e na6oi*a#4e' s#stantia4' an*

irre+ara#4e inry to e44in7tonoined for an loss, e%pense, or damagecaused b the improvident or erroneous issuance of the order! The Cgranted the TR*!- /AL; filed a supplemental petition for certiorari in the C protesting theissuance in a different case &filed b co-lessee mmanuel Ealang' but bthe same >udge, of another in>unction couched in e%actl the same words!

I((E)*N the two cases involve, or grow out of, a labor dispute

HELDN*!Reasoning There e%ists no 4a#or *is+te between /AL; and either)ellington or Ealang! The strike and the picket are directed against>ETR0BANK, an entirel different and separate entit without connectionwhatsoever with eI4in7ton and Ga4an7other than the incidental factthat the are the bank$s 4an*4or* and co:4essee, respectivel! Theirrelationship is so remote that we fail to discern an indicium of saidcomplainants$ interests in the labor dispute between the union and#TR*"ANM as to make the two cases below fall within the purview of RA


10/35

C. Pic,etin7 an* Li#e4 Laws Art. !!' Re6ise* Pena4 Co*e

Philippine Commercial an( In(6strial Ban8 v. Philna)an8Employees Association, 1$5 SCRA !1 #:1%-1 (CRA !-) 3ERNAND0% /4y 2' -@J-

3ACT( - P9i4i++ine Co88ercia4 an* In*stria4 Ban,filed an action

for 4i#e4 against the P9i4i++ine Nationa4 Ban, E8+4oyees? Associationas a result ofplacards and signboardsalong the PNB #i4*in7, containingthe following9 3PCIB BAD ACC0NT( TRAN(3ERRED T0 PNB:NIDCJ3

ome witnesses testified on9(! /referring to *e+osit e4sew9ere0! Deposits *ecrease*

The decision of the then Fudge Conrado as.ue was to dismiss thecomplaint! e could not discern an libelous imputation in the allegedoffending words! uch a ruling finds additional support in the smpatheticapproach followed b courts to inaccracies an* i8+recision in4an7a7e in the use of placards as part of peaceful picketing in labor

controversies!

I((E )*N the said placards were libelous

HELD N*!

- There was a labor controvers resulting in a stri,e, fortunatel lastingonl for one *ay! The labor union made use of its constittiona4 ri79tto+ic,et! /eaceful picketing is part of the free*o8 of s+eec9guarantee ofthe Constitution!- La#or *is+tesgive rise to stron7 e8otiona4 res+onse! 1t is a fact ofindustrial life, both in the /hilippines as in the ;nited tates, that in thecontinin7 confrontationbetween labor and management, it is far fro84i,e4ythat the language emploed would be both corteos an* +o4ite!- 1n no uncertain terms, it made clear that the >udiciar, in deciding suitsfor libel, must ascertain whether or not the alleged offending words mabe embraced b the guarantees of free speech and free press!'isposition Appealed decision is affirmed!


11/35

D. E8+4oyer:E8+4oyee Re4ations9i+

'e 4eon v. ational 4a)or Union, 1$$ P ":< #5"%-11 PHIL J@ PADILLA% /an !1' -@NATRE Appeal from >udgment of C1

3ACT( - /laintiffs sought to recover *a8a7esand inncti6e re4ief!- Defendants have been picketing Da4isay T9eater, owned b De Leon'operated by co0plaintiffs!- /urpose is to secre reinstate8ent to o#swhen t9eaterwas run b3i4i+ino T9eatrica4 Enter+rises, then a 4esseeof parcel of De Leon5sland!- P4acar*s9

- 'o not patroni>ethe Dalisa Theater- Dalisa Theater is unfair to labor!- Ha6e 8ercyon the picketeers!- (y8+at9i;ewith us!

- Due to picketing, bo% office totaled P-'21when a premier of film suchas Di8asO could have earned P2'11gross receipt!

I((E )*N strike is illegal

HELD N*- )alking back and forth, displaing placards, do not disturb public peace!- There was no e5istence of a re4ations9i+ of e8+4oyers an*e8+4oyeesbetween plaintiffs and defendants, although purpose of picketis to reinstate defendants! /1CMT1NE /AC;LL+ CARR1D *;T 1 N*T1LLEAL N 1N T A"NC * #/L*+R-#/L*+ RLAT1*N1/*R /AC;L /1CMT1NE 1 /ART * T RD*# * /C!

1n this case, it is undisputed that after defendants were dismissed or laidoff from their work at the old Dalisa Theater b the ilipino Theatricalnterprises, 1nc!, the showhouse came under a tota44y *ifferent8ana7e8ent when it was reopened on Fanuar (:, (


12/35

Cr6> v. Cinema Sta&e, 1$1 P 125< #5"%

o far it is apparent that courts are primaril concerned in labor cases withdefining what Chief Fudge /ound of the highest New +ork court so aptlcalled 3t9e a44owa#4e area of econo8ic conf4ict!3 The role of thein>unction in labor relations and the enactment of the stringent anti-in>unction provisions in the 1ndustrial /eace Act attest to the validit of this

statement! "ut the stringenc of the procedural re.uirements, for instance,that the Act imposes find >ustification nevertheless in the irritatingpotentialities of the in>unction! Thus, significantl, ection < &d' thereofprovides that no court of the /hilippines shall issue a temporar orpermanent in>unction in an case involving or growing out of a 4a#or*is+te e%cept after finding9

3&(' That n4awf4 acts have been threatened and will becommitted unless restrained, or have been committed and will becontinued unless restrained %% %% %%B3&0' That s#stantia4 an* irre+ara#4e inry to complainant$spropert will followB3&2' That as to each item or relief granted 7reater inrywill be

inflicted upon co8+4ainantb the *enia4of relief than will beinf4icte*upon defendants b the 7rantin7 of re4iefB3&6'3 That complainant has no a*eFate re8e*y at 4awB and3&7' That the +#4ic officerscharged with the dut to +rotectcomplainant$s +ro+erty are unable or nwi44in7 to furnisha*eFate +rotection!O

The instant case involves 8ere4y t9e fift9 reFire8entB it point-blankldemonstrates the rule of strict construction put b the upreme Court onthe above-enumerated re.uisites! The case, involving t9e +ic,etin7 ofthe (ociety T9eateron Ec9a7e (t.' >ani4a, reveals that 3the wor,ersfor8e* a circ4est near t9e tic,et:win*owdisplaing +4acar*sandsaing unction order, the upreme Court notedparticularl that e5ce+tfor the statement that no arrestswere made bthe police, no fin*in7was made as to the +#4ic officers< ina#i4ity ornwi44in7ness to frnis9 a*eFate +rotection! %plaining theinsufficienc of such statement as compliance with the fifth re.uirement,the Court discoursed thus9

3% % % % 1t &the statement' *oes notsa the police were +resent!1t does not i8+4ythe saw the +4acar*sand 9ear* t9e t9reats!

1t *oes not say the were re.uested to make arrests, butdeclined or were unable to do so! *f course, the statement that


13/35

E. Crtai48ent

=ree elephone 3or8ers Union v. Philippine 4on& 'istance Co., 11!SCRA 992 #:2%--! (CRA 2 >AKA(IAR% A+ri4 2' -@J2

3ACT(*n November (, (


14/35

mandator in>unction docketed as E! R! No! L-06?77, .uestioning thepower and >urisdiction of respondent C1R! *n Ful 0:, (


15/35

a&8a8aisan& an&&a&a?a sa C6i>on 0otel v. 4i)ron, 12 SCRA: #:!%-2) (CRA ))J 3ERNAND0% A7st !-' -@J!.NATRE -Certiorari proceeding3ACT( -the La#or Ar#itercame out with this decision9 3H)herefore,premises consideredI, the strike staged on April (7, (arciano>acaraya an* Cesar a+ to have 4ost t9eir e8+4oy8ent status forparticipating in an illegal strike and committing unlawful acts during thestrikeB and ordering the respondent union to pa the petitioner the amountof /esos Three undred Thirt Nine Thousand &/22ect thus9 3&e' No +erson en7a7e* in +ic,etin7s9a44 co88it any act of 6io4ence, coercion or intimidation or obstructthe free ingress to or egress from the emploer$s premises for lawfulpurposes, or obstruct public thoroughfares!3Dis+osition 1n view of the settlement of the labor dispute between theparties, and the workers are back to work-Dismissed for being moot andacademic


16/35

3. Restrictions' Innocent T9ir* Party R4e an* Lia#i4ities

4i?ay?ay P6)lishin& Co., Inc. v. Permanent Concrete 3or8ersUnion, 1$: SCRA 191 #:1%-1J (CRA -- GERRER0% 0cto#er 2!' -@J-NATRE -This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of irst1nstance

3ACT( -)hile a 4a#or *is+te between defendant-appellant nionandPer8anent Concrete Pro*cts, 1nc! was pending before the Court of1ndustrial Relations, the Court of irst 1nstance of #anila issued in anaction for *a8a7es filed b the plaintiff-appellee LiwaywayP#4ications , 1nc! a writ of preliminary injunctionagainst appellant nionwhich +ic,ete* and +re6ente* entrance to the 7ate leading to the#o*e7aof appellee and t9reatene* its officers an* e8+4oyeesdespitethe fact that the appellee is not in anyway related to thestri,in7 nionbut a mere s#4esseeof said #o*e7a in the compound of Per8anentConcrete Pro*cts' Inc. against whom the strike was staged! Appellantunion filed a 8otion to *is8issan* 8otion to *isso46ethe writ on theground that onl the Court of 1ndustrial Relations and not the Court of irst

1nstance has e;cl6sive @6ris(iction over the la)or (isp6teB that theappellee has no ca6se o7 actionagainst the striking union but against thelessorB and that plaintiff-appellee is not the real party in interestbutPermanent Concrete Pro(6cts, Inc! The lower court (enie(the motionfor lac8 o7 la)or (isp6tebetween the plaintiff and defendant of which theCourt of 1ndustrial Relations ma take cogniance and rendered a decisiondeclaring the writ permanent and ordering the pament of damages,attorne$s fees and costs!

I((E)*N this case involves or has arisen out of a labor dispute! 1f itdoes, then with certaint, ection < of Republic Act @?7, the 31ndustrial/eace Act,3 would appl! 1f it does not, then the Rules of Court will governthe issuance of the writ of preliminar in>unction because it will not partakethe nature of a labor in>unction which the lower court has no >urisdiction to

issue!

HELDN0. The )6sinessof the appellee is e5c4si6e4ythe +#4icationof the 8a7a;ines Bannawa7, Bisaya, Hi4i7aynon and Liwaywaywee,4y 8a7a;ines w9ic9 have absolutely no relation or connectionwhatsoever with the ca6se o7 the stri8e o7 the 6nion against theircompan, much less with the terms, conditions or demands of the strikers!The appellee is a t9ir* +arty or an innocent #y:stan*er whose righthas been in6a*e*and, therefore, entit4e* to +rotectionb the regularcourts!-The right to picket as a means of communicating the facts of a labordispute is a phase of the freedom of speech guaranteed b the

constitution! If +eacef44y carrie* ot' it cannot #e crtai4e* e6en int9e a#sence of e8+4oyer:e8+4oyee re4ations9i+! The right is,however, not an a#so4te one! )hile peaceful picketing is entitled toprotection as an e%ercise of free speech, we believe that courts are notwithout power to confine or 4oca4i;e t9e s+9ere of co88nicationorthe *e8onstration to t9e +arties to t9e 4a#or *is+te, including thosewith re4ate* interest, and to ins4ate esta#4is98ents or +ersonswith

no in*stria4 connection or having interest tota44y forei7n to theconte5t of t9e *is+te! Thus, the right ma be regulated at the instanceof third parties or innocent bstanders$ if it appears that the inevitableresult of its e%ercise is to create an impression that a labor dispute withwhich the have no connection or interest e%ists between them and thepicketing union or constitute an invasion of their rights! 1n one casedecided b this Court, we upheld a trial court$s in>unction prohibiting theunion from blocking the entrance to a feed mill located within thecompound of a flour mill with which the union had a dispute! Althoughsustained on a different ground, no connection was found other than theirbeing sitate* in t9e sa8e +re8ises! 1t is to be noted that in theinstances cited, peaceful picketing has not been totall banned but merelregulated! And in one American case, a picket b a labor union in front of a

motion picture theater with which the union had a labor dispute wasen>oined b the court from being e%tended in front of the main entrance ofthe building housing the theater wherein other stores operated b thirdpersons were located!-*n appeal, the upreme Court in upholding the >urisdiction of the lowercourt to issue the writ of preliminar in>unction, ruled that9 &a' there is noconnection between the appellee, the appellant union and the /ermanentConcrete /roducts, 1nc! and the fact, that the latter and appellee aresituated in t9e sa8e +re8ises, can hardl be considered as interwovenwith the labor dispute pending with the Court of 1ndustrial RelationsB and&b' the acts of the striking union are mere acts of tres+assfor which thelessee shall have a direct action against the trespasser!Dis+osition Decision appealed from, affirmed in toto!


17/35

S= ire an( R6))er Inc. v. CA, !11 SCRA ": #


18/35

Pro9i#ite* Acti6ities Peacef4 Pic,etin7 2) "#$' Arts. 2J@ an*!-2 Re6ise* Pena4 Co*eArt. 2). Pro9i#ite* acti6ities.

a! No labor organiation or emploer shall declare a strike or lockoutwithout first having bargained collectivel in accordance with Title11 of this "ook or without first having filed the notice re.uired inthe preceding Article or without the necessar strike or lockout

vote first having been obtained and reported to the #inistr!No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption of>urisdiction b the /resident or the #inister or after certificat ion orsubmission of the dispute to compulsor or voluntar arbitration orduring the pendenc of cases involving the same grounds for thestrike or lockout!An worker whose emploment has been terminated as aconse.uence of an unlawful lockout shall be entitled toreinstatement with full backwages! An union officer whoknowingl participates in an illegal strike and an worker or unionofficer who knowingl participates in the commission of illegal actsduring a strike ma be declared to have lost his emplomentstatus9 /rovided, That mere participation of a worker in a lawful

strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of hisemploment, even if a replacement had been hired b theemploer during such lawful strike!

b! No person shall obstruct, impede, or interfere with, b force,violence, coercion, threats or intimidation, an peaceful picketingb emploees during an labor controvers or in the e%ercise ofthe right to self-organiation or collective bargaining, or shall aidor abet such obstruction or interference!

c! No emploer shall use or emplo an strike-breaker, nor shall anperson be emploed as a strike-breaker!

d! No public official or emploee, including officers and personnel ofthe New Armed orces of the /hilippines or the 1ntegrated National/olice, or armed person, shall bring in, introduce or escort in anmanner, an individual who seeks to replace strikers in entering or

leaving the premises of a strike area, or work in place of thestrikers! The police force shall keep out of the picket lines unlessactual violence or other criminal acts occur therein9 /rovided, Thatnothing herein shall be interpreted to prevent an public officerfrom taking an measure necessar to maintain peace and order,protect life and propert, and=or enforce the law and legal order!&As amended b %ecutive *rder No! (((, December 06, (


19/35

PART NINELAB0R IN/NCTI0N

I. DE3INITI0N AND NATRE (ee any Law Dictionary

Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. 4RC, 2:" SCRA 9"2 #ust as petitioners 3thought that the werealread full cleared of the charges, as the no longer received ansummons=notices on the intended 3additional hearings3 mandated b theDisciplinar "oard,3 the were surprised to receive 3on ebruar 02,(


20/35


21/35

e%istence of an emergenc or of a special reason before the main case beregularl heard!The essentia4 con*itions for granting such temporar in>unctive reliefare9

(' that the complaint alleges factswhich appear to be sfficienttoconstitute a +ro+er #asis for innctionand

0' that on the entire showing from the contending parties, the

in>unction is reasona#4y necessaryto protect the 4e7a4 ri79tsofthe plaintiff pending the litigation!

1n>unction is also a special e.uitable relief granted onl in cases wherethere is no +4ain' a*eFate an* co8+4ete re8e*y at 4aw!Article 0(@ of the La#or Co*e empowers the NLRC K

&e' To en>oin or restrain an actual or threatened commission ofan or all prohibited or unlawful acts or to re.uire theperformance of a particular act in an 4a#or *is+tewhich, ifnot restrained or performed forthwith, ma cause 7ra6e orirre+ara#4e *a8a7e to an part or render ineffectual andecision in favor of such part

Complementing the above-.uoted provision, ec! (, Rule 1 of the NewRules of /rocedure of the NLRC, pertinentl provides as follows9

ection (! 1n>unction in *rdinar Labor Dispute !- A preliminar in>unction or a restraining order ma be granted b theCommission through its divisions pursuant to the provisions of paragraph&e' of Article 0(@ of the Labor Code, as amended, when it is establishedon the bases of the sworn allegations in the petition that the actscomplained of,

a' involving or arising from an labor dispute before theCommission, which,

b' if not restrained or performed forthwith, ma cause grave orirreparable damage to an part or render ineffectual an decision infavor of such part!The foregoing ancillary powerma be e%ercised b the Labor Arbiters9

*NL+ as an 1NC1DNT to the cases pending before them in order

to preserve the rights of the parties during the pendenc of the

case, ";T e%cluding labor disputes involving strikes or lockout!

rom the foregoing provisions of law, the power of the NLRC to issue aninncti6e writoriginatesfrom 3any 4a#or *is+te3 upon application ba part thereof, which application if not granted 3ma cause grave orirreparable damage to an part or render ineffectual an decision in favorof such part!3The term 3LA"*R D1/;T3 is defined as 3an controvers or matterconcerning terms and conditions of emploment or the association orrepresentation of persons in negotiating, fi%ing, maintaining, changing, orarranging the terms and conditions of emploment regardless of whether

or not the disputants stand in the pro%imate relation of emploers andemploees!3The term 3C*NTR*R+O is likewise defined as 3a litigated .uestionBadversar proceeding in a court of lawB a civil action or suit, either at lawor in e.uitB a >usticiable dispute!3A 3>usticiable controvers3 is 3one involving an active antagonisticassertion of a legal right on one side and a denial thereof on the other

concerning a real, and not a mere theoretical .uestion or issue!3Taking into account the foregoing definitions, it is an NT1ALRP;1R#NT that t9ere 8st first #e a LAB0R DI(PTE #etweent9e conten*in7 +arties #efore t9e 4a#or ar#iter.

3hy (oes in@6nction not apply to the 7acts o7 this case1n the present case, there is no 4a#or *is+tebetween the petitioner andprivate respondents as there has et been no co8+4aint for i44e7a4*is8issa4 fi4e* wit9 t9e 4a#or ar#iter b the private respondentsagainst the petitioner!urthermore, an e%amination of private respondents$ petition for in>unctionreveals that it has no basis since there is no s9owin7 of any r7ency orirre+ara#4e inrywhich the private respondents might suffer!

3hen is an in@6ry consi(ere( irrepara)leAn in>ur is considered irreparable if it is of such constant and fre.uentrecurrence that no fair an* reasona#4e re*ress can #e 9a* t9erefor ina cort of 4aw' or where there is no stan*ar*b which their a8ontcan #e 8easre* wit9 reasona#4e accracy, that is, it is notssce+ti#4e of 8at9e8atica4 co8+tation.1t is considered irreparable in>ur when it cannot be ade.uatelcompensated in damages due to the nature of the in>ur itself or thenature of the right or propert in>ured or when there e%ists no certainpecuniar standard for the measurement of damages!1n the case at bar, the alleged in>ur which private respondents stand tosuffer b reason of their alleged illegal dismissal can be ade.uatelcompensated and therefore, there e%ists no 3irreparable in>ur,3 as defined

above which would necessitate the issuance of the in>unction sought for! Article 0?< of the Labor Code provides that an emploee who is

un>ustl dismissed from emploment shall be entitled toreinstatement, without loss of seniorit rights and other privileges,and to the pament of full backwages, inclusive of allowances, andto other benefits or their monetar e.uivalent computed from thetime his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of hisactual reinstatement!


22/35

II. GENERAL RLE PR0HIBITI0N 2)% 2-2 "I$% 2-J "e$Calte; =ilipino ana&ers an( S6pervisors Association v. CIR, SCRA !5$ #"2%)) (CRA 1@ 3ERNAND0 (e+te8#er 2J' -@2

3ACT( Calte% &claims'9- 8ana7eria4 +ersonne4 could neitherc4ai8nor be the o#ectof

an nfair 4a#or +ractice- based on the case 1n re9 /etition for Certification lection at the

Calte%, 1nc!, Cebu District, Alte% upervisor and oremen5s;nion9 the Court *ec4are* certain positions in respondentcompan5s Cebu District as 8ana7e8ent and e5c4*e* themfrom the #ar7ainin7 nitof s+er6isors!

I((E )*N an unfair labor practice 8ay #e co88itte* againstmanagerial personnel who are members of petitioner Calte% ilipino#anagers and upervisors Association

HELD E(Reasonin&

- The stand of the compan was not a w9i8sica4 an* f4i8syone!1t had valid legal basis! 1t 9onest4y #e4ie6e* that managers,being part of management should not #e inc4*e*in a union ofsupervisors!

- The basic .uestion is whether the managerial personnel canor7ani;e! )hat respondent Compan failed to take into accountis that the right to self-organiation is not merel a statutorcreation! 1t is fortified b our Constitution! All are free to e%ercisesuch right unless their purpose is contrar to law! Certainl itwould be to attach unorthodo% to, not to sa an emasculation of,the concept of law if 8ana7ers as sc9 were +rec4*e* fro8or7ani;in7! aving done so and having been dul registered, asdid occur in this case, their union is entit4e* to a44 t9e ri79tsunder Republic Act No! @?7! Considering what is denominated an

unfair labor practice under ection 6 of such Act and the facts setforth in our decision, there can be onl one answer to theob>ection raised that no unfair labor practice could be committedb respondent Compan insofar as managerial personnel isconcerned! 1t is, as is .uite obvious, in the negative!

DI(P0(ITIE /etition denied


23/35

III. EMCEPTI0N( HEN IN/NCTI0N ALL0ED 2)% 2-J "e$%2) "a$

ational ines an( Allie( 3or8ers Union v. Dera, 1!! SCRA 25Cand I4aw at B,4o* n7 >an77a7awa "IB>' e%ecuted aCBA wherein the agreed to s#8it all disputes to 7rie6ance andarbitration proceedings, aside from no:stri,e' no:4oc,ot a7ree8ent!

-1"#, through its Pand subse.uentl through its +resi*ent&which wasopposed b the /', filed with NC#" a notice of stri,eagainst #C forallegedl committing9 &(' i44e7a4 *is8issa4of union members, &0' illegaltransfer, &2' 6io4ation of CBA, &6' contractin7 ot of >obs beingperformed b union members, &7' 4a#or:on4y contractin7, &8'9arass8ent of nion officers an* 8e8#ers, 364 non:reco7nition of*4y:e4ecte* nion officers, and &@' other acts of unfair labor practice!#C filed a #otion for everance of Notices of trike with #otion toDismiss on the grounds that the notices raised non:stri,ea#4e issesandthat the affected 6 corporations!-NC#"9 issues are non-strikeable, as onl #C was impleaded when 6different companies were involved! Notices of strike converted intopreventive mediation!

-while se+arate +re6enti6e 8e*iation conferenceswere ongoing, the;nion through its / filed a notice of 9o4*in7 a stri,e 6ote! #Copposed, invoking /AL v! Drilon &no strike could be legall declared duringthe pendenc of preventive mediation'! NC#" reiterated conversion ofnotice of strike into preventive mediation and grounds raised were onlintra:nion conf4ictU nonstri,ea#4e &who between the 7 groups shallrepresent the workers for collective bargaining purposes$ unionleadership4.-1"# /resident group filed 2n* notice of stri,e against #C, NC#" foundthe additional grounds to be mere a8+4ifications of issues alleged in the(stnotice of strike! *rdered conso4i*ation of the 0ndnotice of strike with(stnotice of strike! Eroup informed #C of its plan to hold a strike!-/ group notified the NC#" that their strike vote favored the holding of astrike! NC#" issued a letter reminding the group of the /AL v Drilon! 1"#

went on stri,e! trike paraled the operations of #C, which causedmillions of loses!-#C filed with NLRC a Petition for Innction wit9 Prayer for t9eIssance of TR0, 3ree In7ress an* E7ress 0r*er and Deputiation*rder, which was issued b NLRC, wit9ot +re*ice to t9e nion?sri79t to +eacef4 +ic,etin7 an* continos 9earin7son the in>unctioncase! #C also entered into a #emorandum of Agreement with ;nion,calling for lifting of picket lines and resumption of work in e%change ofgood faith talksO between the management and the labor managementcommittees! The #*A also stated that cases filed in relation to theirdispute will continue and will not be affected in an manner whatsoever bthe agreement! )ork was then resumed!

-NLRC reconsidered the issuance of TR*, and sought to dismiss thein>unction case! #C opposed, submitted copies of flers wherein 1"#e%pressed their threat to revive the strike! NLRC issued decision deningthe petition for in>unction for lack of factual basis, there being nocircumstance to constitute an actual or threatened commission of unlawfulacts! #R denied

I((E( )*N the strike held b 1"# was illegal &therefore, NLRCcommitted grave abuse of discretion in dening the petition for in>unctionfiled b #C'

HELD9+a! /rocedural aspect of the strike-or a strike to be valid, it must be pursued within legal bounds! *ne ofthe procedural re.uisites that A082 of the LC and its 1RR prescribe is thefiling of a valid notice of strike with the NC#"! 1mposed for the purpose ofencouraging the voluntar settlement of disputes, this re.uirement hasbeen held to be mandator, the lack of which shall render a strike illegal!-1n accordance with the 1mplementing Rules of the Labor Code, thecon6ersionof the notice of stri,e to +re6enti6e 8e*iationhas the

effect of *is8issin7 t9e notices of stri,efiled b respondent! A case inpoint is /AL v! Drilon, where we declared a strike illegal for lack of a validnotice of strike, in view of the NC#"5s conversion of the notice therein intoa preventive mediation case! During the pendenc of preventive mediationproceedings no strike could be legall declared!-therefore, since t9e notice of stri,efiled b the union was con6erte*into +re6enti6e 8e*iationproceedings, the nion 9a* 4ost t9e noticesof stri,e re.uired under A082! Howe6er, the union *efiant4yproceededwith the strike w9i4e 8e*iation was on7oin7! uch disregard of themediation proceedings was a blatant violation of the1mplementing Rules,which e%plicitl oblige the parties to bargain collectivel in good faith andprohibit them from impeding or disrupting the proceedings!b! on ruling of NLRC that there was lack of factual basis &no circumstanceto constitute an actual or threatened commission of unlawful acts'

-at the time the in>unction was being sought, there e%isted a threat torevive the unlawful strike as evidenced b the flers then being circulatedb the 1"#, which were not denied b the respondent union! #oreover, adeclaration of strike without first having filed the re.uired notice is aprohibited activit &A086&a'', which ma be prevented through anin>unction in accordance with A076!c! on 1"#5s failure to observe the C"A provisions on grievance andarbitration- trikes held in violation of the terms contained in a collective bargainingagreement are illegal especiall when the provide for conclusivear#itration c4ases! These agreements must #e strict4y a*9ere*to andrespected if their ends have to be achieved!


25/35

-)e cannot sanction the respondent-union5s braen disregard of legalre.uirements imposed purposel to carr out the state polic of promotingvoluntar modes of settling disputes! The state5s commitment to enforcemutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace is affirmed b noless than our Constitution! Trade unionism and strikes are legitimateweapons of labor granted b our statutes! "ut misuse of these instrumentscan be the sub>ect of >udicial intervention to forestall grave in>ur to a

business enterprise!O+isposition. )R*R, the instant petition is hereb ERANTD! Thedecision and resolution of the NLRC in 1n>unction Case No! ::68@-


26/35

Ila? at B68lo( n& an&&a&a?a v. 'irector o7 B4R,


27/35

agreement clearl stating that settlement of 3all disputes, disagreementsor controversies of an kind3 should be achieved b the stipulatedgrievance procedure and ultimatel b arbitration!Disposition /T1T1*N DN1D

'elta Dent6res Reso6rce, Inc. v. Ca)ato, !2" SCRA 521 #$$%

!2" SCRA 521 I(>BING% >ARCH @' 2111

NATRE pecial civil action for certiorari seeks to annul the *rder FudgeCabato of the RTC, dismissing petitioner$s amended third-part complaint,as well as the *rder dening motion for reconsideration!

3ACT(A Decision was rendered b LA declaring the Green >ontain 3ar8,Ro#erto 0n7+in and A48s A4a#e guilt of I44e7a4 Dis8issa4 and;nfair La#or Practice and ordering them to pa the complainants, insolidum plus attorne$s fees in the amount of P-1'111.11! Almus Alabe isalso ordered to answer in e5e8+4ary *a8a7es in the amount of/7,:::!:: each to all the complainants!LA issued a writ of e5ection directing NLRC Deput heriff Adamentura to e%ecute the >udgment! heriff entura then proceeded toenforce the writ b 7arnis9in7 certain +ersona4 +ro+erties ofrespondents! inding that said >udgment debtors do not have sufficientpersonal properties to satisf the monetar award, heriff enturaproceeded to 4e6y upon a rea4 +ro+erty registered in the name ofRoberto *ngpin, one of the respondents in the labor case!"efore the scheduled auction sale, herein +etitioner filed before theCommission a t9ir*:+arty c4ai8asserting ownershipo6er t9e +ro+erty4e6ie*upon and sub>ect of the heriff5s notice of sale! Labor Arbiter Riverathus issued an order directing the ss+ension of t9e action sa4euntilthe merits of petitioner$s claim has been resolved!owever, +etitionerfiled with the RTC a co8+4aint for innctionanddamages, with a praer for the issuance of a te8+orary restrainin7

or*er against heriff entura! Fudge Cabato issued a temporarrestraining order, en>oining respondents in the civil case before him to holdin abeance an action relative to the enforcement of the decision in thelabor case!urther, petitioner filed with the Commission a manifestation .uestioningthe latter$s authorit to hear the case, the matter being within the>urisdiction of the regular courts! The manifestation, however, wasdismissed b Labor Arbiter Rivera!

I((E )*N the trial court ma take cogniance of the complaint filed bpetitioner and conse.uentl provide the in>unctive relief sought!

HELD N*! "asic as a hornbook principle, ris*iction o6er t9e s#ect8atter of a case is conferre* #y 4aw an* *eter8ine* #y t9ea44e7ations in t9e co8+4aintwhich comprise a concise statement of theultimate facts constituting the petitioner$s cause of action! *stensibl thecomplaint before the trial court was for the reco6ery of +ossessionandinnction, but in essence it was an action c9a44en7in7 t9e 4e7a4ity or+ro+riety of t9e 4e6y 6is:a:6is t9e a4ias writ of e5ection , including

the acts performed b the La#or Ar#iter and the De+ty (9eriffimplementing the writ! The complaint was in effect a 8otion to Fas9thewrit of e5ectionof a *ecisionrendered on a case properl within the

ris*iction of t9e La#or Ar#iter, to wit9 I44e7a4 Dis8issa4and nfairLa#or Practice! Considering the factual setting, it is then logical toconclude that the sub>ect matter of the third part claim is but an incidentof the labor case, a matter beond the >urisdiction of regional trial courts!/recedent abound confirming the rule that said courts have no >urisdictionto act on 4a#or casesor various incidents arising therefrom, including thee5ection of *ecisions' awar*s or or*ers! Furisdiction to tr andad>udicate such cases pertains e%clusivel to the proper labor officialconcerned under the Department of Labor and mploment! To holdotherwise is to sanction s+4it ris*iction which is o#no5ios to theorderl administration of >ustice!

The broad powers granted to the Labor Arbiter and to the National LaborRelations Commission b Articles 0(?, 0(@ and 006 of the Labor Code canonl be interpreted as vesting in them >urisdiction over incidents arisingfrom, in connection with or relating to labor disputes, as the controversunder consideration, to the e%clusion of the regular courts!

aving established that >urisdiction over the case rests with theCommission, we find no grave abuse of discretion on the part ofrespondent Fudge Cabato in dening petitioner$s motion for the issuance ofan in>unction against the e%ecution of the decision of the National LaborRelations Commission!


28/35

Rava&o v. Eastern arine, 4t(., 5! SCRA !:1 #$5%

=acts8 /etitioner is a seafarerwho was hired on a contracta4 #asis!hortl after t9e ter8inationof his latest contract, he was granted a6acation 4ea6e! During that time, he was 9it #y a stray #44eton his left4e7which caused +er8anent inry! Eastern >arinerefused to re0hirehim! /etitioner filed a case for i44e7a4 *is8issa4!

The La#or Ar#iter found that /etitioner was not i44e7a44y *is8isse*!NLRC reversed! *n appeal, CA issued a +re4i8inary innction!The petitioner asserts that the CA 6io4ate* Artic4e 2) of t9e La#orCo*e w9en it isse* a te8+orary restrainin7 or*er , and thereafter awrit of preliminar in>unction, to *erai4the enforce8entof the fina4 an*e5ectory *78ent of the Labor Arbiter as affirmed b the NLRC! *nthe other hand, the respondents contend that the issue has becomeacademic since the CA had alread decided the case on its merits!

0el(8 The petitioner5s reliance on Article 07 Hof the Labor Code ismisplaced! The law +roscri#esthe issuance of in>unctive relief only inthose cases involvin& or &ro?in& o6t o7 a la)or (isp6te.

The case before the NLRC neither involves nor grows out of a labor

dispute! 1t did not involve the fi%ing of terms or conditions ofemploment or representation of persons with respect thereto! 1n fact, the petitioner5s complaint revolves around the issue of his

alleged dismissal from service and his claim for backwages,damages and attorne5s fees! #oreover, Article 076 of the LaborCode specificall provides that the NLRC ma grant in>unctiverelief under Article 0(@ thereof!

"esides, the anti:innction +o4icy of the Labor Code, basicall, isfree*o8 at t9e wor,+4ace! 1t is more appropriate in the promotion ofthe primac of free collective bargaining and negotiations, includingvoluntar arbitration, mediation and conciliation, as 8o*es of sett4in74a#or an* in*stria4 *is+tes.Eenerall, an innctionis a +reser6ati6e re8e*yfor the protection ofa +erson?s s#stanti6e ri79ts or interests! 1t is not a case of

action in itself but a 8ere +ro6isiona4 re8e*y, an appendage to themain suit! /ressing necessit re.uires that it should be resorted to onl toavoid in>urious conse.uences which cannot be remedied under anmeasure of consideration! The a++4ication of an inncti6e writ restsupon the +resence of an e5i7encyor of an e5ce+tiona4 reasonbeforethe main case can be regularl heard!The in(ispensa)le con(itions for granting such temporar in>unctiverelief are9&a' that the complaint alleges factswhich appear to be satisfactor toestablish a +ro+er #asis for in>unction, and

&b' that on the entire showing from the contending parties, the in>unctionis reasona#4y necessary to protect the 4e7a4 ri79ts of the plaintiffpending the litigation!1t bears stressing that in the present case, the respondents5 petitioncontains facts sfficient to warrantthe issuance of an in>unction underArticle 0(@, paragraph &e' of the Labor Code of the /hilippines! urther,respondents had alread posted a srety #on*more than ade.uate to

cover the >udgment award!


29/35


30/35

B. Innction an* >e*:Ar#iter

'inio v. 4a&6esma, 2"! SCRA 1$< #


31/35

te8+orary restrainin7 or*eragainst the /C1";-Comelec &docketed asNCR-*D-#-unction dated 0 ebruar (


32/35

supervision and control of this *ffice! The Representation *fficer is herebdirected to implement this *rder without further dela!urther, pending the final resolution of these cases, all individuals whohave been proclaimed winners b respondent C*#LC pursuant to itsproclamation dated ebruar 0


33/35

There is no .uestion that the issance of a te8+orary restrainin7or*eris addressed to the son* *iscretion of t9e >e*:Ar#iter!

owever, 3this discretion should be e%ercised based upon the

grounds and in the manner provided b law!31n the case of labor in>unctions or te8+orary restrainin7 or*ers, onema issue on4yin instances where the complainant or applicant will sffer7ra6e or irre+ara#4e *a8a7esas provided in ec! 7, Rule 1, "ook

of the *mnibus Rules 1mplementing the Labor Code9ec 7! 1n>unctions! K No temporar in>unctions or restraining order inan case involving or growing out of a labor dispute shall be issued b ancourt or other entit! *n the other hand, the *ffice of the /resident, theecretar of Labor, the Commission, the Labor Arbiter or med-arbiter maen>oin an or all acts involving or arising from an case pending before anof said offices or officials which if not restrained forthwith ma cause graveor irreparable damage to an of the parties to the case or seriousl affectsocial or economic stabilit!1n the instant controvers, the first petition for in>unction and temporarrestraining order filed b petitioners on 0< Fanuar (unctions or restraining orders are frowned

upon as a matter of labor relations polic,3 and as a general reminder9There is no power the e%ercise of which is more delicate which re.uiresgreater caution, deliberation, and sound discretion, or &which is' moredangerous in a doubtful case than the issuing of an in>unctionB it is thestrong arm of e.uit that never ought to be e%tended unless to cases ofgreat in>ur, where courts of law cannot afford an ade.uate orcommensurate remed in damages! The right must be clear, the in>urimpending or threatened, so as to be averted onl b the protectingpreventive process of in>unction!


34/35

C. Proce*ra4 ReFire8ents an* R4es for t9e Issance of La#orInnctions 2-J "c$

Bisi& n& an&&a&a?a v. 4RC, 229 SCRA oin or restrain an actual or threatened commission of an or allprohibited or unlawful acts or to re.uire the performance of a particular actin an labor dispute which, if not restrained or performed forthwith, ma

cause grave or irreparable damage to an part or render ineffectual andecision in favor of such part9 /rovided, That no temporar or permanentin>unction in an case involving or growing out of a labor dispute asdefined in this Code shall be issued e%cept after hearing the testimon ofwitnesses, with opportunit for cross-e%amination, in support of theallegations of a complaint made under oath, and testimon in oppositionthereto, if offered, and onl after a finding of fact b the commission, to

the effect93&(' That prohibited or unlawful acts have been threatened and will becommitted and will be continued unless restrained but no in>unction ortemporar restraining order shall be issued on account of an threat,prohibited or unlawful act, e%cept against the person or persons,association or organiation making the threat or committing the prohibitedor unlawful act or actuall authoriing or ratifing the same after actualknowledge thereofB3&0' That substantial and irreparable in>ur to complainants propert willfollowB3&2' That as to each item of relief to be granted, greater in>ur will beinflicted upon complainant b the denial of relief than will be inflicted upondefendants b the granting of reliefB3&6' That complainant has no ade.uate remed at lawB and3&7' That thepublic officers charged with the dut to protect complainants propert areunable or unwilling to furnish ade.uate protection!3uch hearing shall be held after due and personal notice thereof has beenserved, in such manner as the Commission shall direct, to all knownpersons against whom relief is sought, and also to the Chief %ecutive andother public officials of the province or cit within which the unlawful havebeen threatened or committed charged with the dut to protectcomplainant$s propert9 ! ! !3

- 1n his Comment, the olicitor Eeneral cited various evidence on recordshowing the failure of public respondents to fulfill the re.uirements,especiall of paragraphs four and five of the above cited law! The factualcircumstances proven b the evidence show that there was no concurrence

of the five prere.uisites mandated b Art! 0(@&e' of the Labor Code! Thusthere is no >ustification for the issuance of the .uestioned *rder ofpreliminar in>unction!- #oreover, the records reveal the continuing misuse of unfair strategies tosecure e% parte temporar restraining orders against striking emploees!/etitioner union did not receive an cop of private respondent$s petitionfor in>unction! 1ts address, as alleged b the private respondent, turnedout to be 3erroneous3! Conse.uentl, the petitioner was denied the rightto attend the hearing while the private respondent en>oed a field dapresenting its evidence e% parte! *n the basis of uncontested evidence, thepublic respondent temporaril en>oined the petitioner from committingcertain alleged illegal acts! Again, a cop of the *rder was sent to the


35/35

wrong address of the petitioner! Mnowledge of the *rder came to thepetitioner onl when its striking members read it after it was posted at thestruck areas of the private respondent!- To be sure, the issuance of an e% parte temporar restraining order in alabor dispute is not per se prohibited! 1ts issuance, however, should becharacteried b care and caution for the law re.uires that it be clearl>ustified b considerations of e%treme necessit, i!e!, when the commission

of unlawful acts is causing substantial and irreparable in>ur to companproperties and the compan is, for the moment, bereft of an ade.uateremed at law! This is as it ought to be, for imprudentl issued temporarrestraining orders can break the back of emploees engaged in a legalstrike! *ften times, the undul tilt the balance of a labor warfare in favorof capital! )hen that happens, the deleterious effects of a wrongfullissued, e% parte temporar restraining order on the rights of strikingemploees can no longer be repaired for the def simple monetiation!#oreover, e%perience shows that e% parte applications for restrainingorders are often based on fabricated facts and concealed truths! A morebecoming sense of fairness, therefore, demands that such e% parteapplications should be more minutel e%amined b hearing officers, lest,our constitutional polic of protecting labor becomes nothing but asnthetic shibboleth! The immediate need to hear and resolve these e%parte applications do not provide an e%cuse to lower our vigilance inprotecting labor against the issuance of indiscriminate in>unctions! tatedotherwise, it behooves hearing officers receiving evidence in support of e%parte in>unctions against emploees in strike to take a more active stancein seeing to it that their right to social >ustice is in no wa violated despitetheir absence! This e.ualiing stance was nottaken in the case at bar bthe public respondents!+isposition The petition is granted!

Print Feb 19 Labor

Documents

Transcript of Print Feb 19 Labor