Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 35

PART EIGHT PICKETING A. Definition Law Dictionary & Bases 2 ! "#$% Constit&tion Art. III' (ec. ) B.

B. Nat&re an* P&r+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% /an&ary 2)' 211. NAT2RE This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision of the CA, which affirmed the ruling of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter 3ACT( - The &nion is the so4e an* e5c4&si6e #ar7ainin7 representative of the regular paid workers and the monthl paid non-ccommission earning emplo ees of the comopan ! individual petitioners are union officers,directors and shop stewards! - The union and the compan entered into a ! year CBA! upon the e5+iration, the union told the compan that the wanted to ne7otiate the terms! the union insisted that representatives from A4yansa n7 87a 2nyon n7 Coca Co4a be a44owe* to o#ser6e the C"A meetings! the compan ref&se* to a44ow al ansa to o#ser6e and an i8+asse ensued! union officers, directors and stewards filed a notice of strrice with NC#" based on *ea*4oc, on C"A and &nfair 4a#or +ractice arising from the compan $s refusal to bargain! the grounds were ammended to unfair labor practice for the compan $s ref&sa4 to #ar7ain in 7oo* fait9 and interference with the e%ercise if their ri79t to se4f:or7ani;ation! - pending the notice to strike, the union decided to participate in a 8ass action #y a4yansa in front of t9e co8+any<s +re8ises ! operations would come to complete stops for insufficienc of contractual emplo ees who would take over! after the mass strike &separate and distinct from the mass action', the compan fi4e* to *ec4are stri,e i44e7a4, to declare the officers of union and individual respondents to 9a6e 4ost t9eir e8+4oy8ent status, to declare the union, its officers and members guilt of unfair labor practice to violation of the C"A, and to award them damages! - the LA found the strike to be illegal such that the participants lost their emplo ment status! the CA affirmed the decision!

I((2E=( (! )*N the mass action wit Al ansa is actuall a strike HELD (! +,Ratio The factual findings and conclusions of tribunals, as long as based on substantial evidence, are conclusive on the -C! Reasonin& The term strike( encompasses not onl concerted work stoppages, but also slowdowns, mass leaves, sit-downs, attempts to damage, destro or sabotage plant e.uipment and facilities, and similar activities! /icketing involves merel the marching to and fro at the premises of the emplo er, usuall accompanied b the displa of placards and other signs making known the facts involved in a labor dispute! That there was a labor dispute between the parties is not an issue! /etitioners notified the respondent of their intention to stage a strike, and not merel to picket! 'isposition /etition is denied for lack of merit! CA decision is affirmed! Article 0(0&o' of the Labor Code defines strike as a temporar stoppage of work b the concerted action of emplo ees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute! 1n "angalisan v! Court of Appeals, 2( the Court ruled that 3the fact that the conventional term 4strike5 was not used b the striking emplo ees to describe their common course of action is inconse.uential, since the substance of the situation, and not its appearance, will be deemed to be controlling!320 The term 3strike3 encompasses not onl concerted work stoppages, but also slowdowns, mass leaves, sit-downs, attempts to damage, destro or sabotage plant e.uipment and facilities, and similar activities!22 Pic,etin7 in6o46es 8ere4y t9e 8arc9in7 to an* fro at t9e +re8ises of t9e e8+4oyer' &s&a44y acco8+anie* #y t9e *is+4ay of +4acar*s an* ot9er si7ns 8a,in7 ,nown t9e facts in6o46e* in a 4a#or *is+&te!26 As applied to a labor dispute, to +ic,et means the stationin7 of one or 8ore +ersons to o#ser6e an* atte8+t to o#ser6e ! The purpose of pickets is said to be a means of +eacea#4e +ers&asion!27 A labor dispute includes an controvers or matter concerning terms or conditions of emplo ment or the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fi%ing, maintaining, changing or arranging the terms and conditions of emplo ment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in the pro%imate relation of emplo er and emplo ee!28 That there was a labor dispute between the parties, in this case, is not an issue! /etitioners notified the respondent of their intention to stage a strike, and not merel to picket! /etitioners5 insistence to stage a strike is evident in the fact that an amended notice to strike was filed even as respondent moved to dismiss the first notice! The #asic e4e8ents of a

1Article 212(o) of the Labor Code defines strike as a temporary stoppage of work by the
concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute.

stri,e are +resent in this case9 (:8 members of petitioner ;nion, whose respective a++4ications for 4ea6e of a#sence on -eptember 0(, (<<< were *isa++ro6e*, opted not to re+ort for wor, on said date, and gathered in front of the compan premises to 9o4* a 8ass +rotest action! /etitioners deliberatel absented themselves and instead wore re( ri))ons, carried placar(s with slogans such as9 3*ES +A,I SA S-RI+E,. .PR/-ES-A +A,I,. .SA0/', +ARAPA-A1 12 ,A122A2A3A IPA24ABA1,. .CBA-53A2 BAB/*I1,. .S-/P U1I/1 BUS-I12.. The 8arc9e* to an* fro in front of the compan 5s premises during working hours! Thus, petitioners engaged in a concerted activit which alread affected the compan 5s operations! The mass concerted activit constituted a strike! The bare fact that petitioners were given a >ayor?s +er8it is not conclusive evidence that their action=activit did not amount to a strike! The #a or5s description of what activities petitioners were allowed to conduct is inconse.uential! To repeat, what is *efiniti6e of whether the action staged by petitioners is a strike and not merely a picket is t9e tota4ity of t9e circ&8stances surrounding the situation! A strike is the most powerful of the economic weapons of workers which the unsheathe to force management to agree to an e.uitable sharing of the >oint product of labor and capital! 1t is a weapon that can either breathe life to or destro the ;nion and its members in their struggle with management for a more e.uitable due to their labors! 2? The decision to declare a strike must therefore rest on a rational basis, free from emotionalism, envisaged b the tempers and tantrums of a few hot heads, and finall focused on the legitimate interests of the ;nion which should not, however, be antithetical to the public welfare, and, to be valid, a strike must be pursued within legal bounds! The right to strike as a means of attainment of social >ustice is never meant to oppress or destro the emplo er!2@ -ince strikes cause disparit effects not onl on the relationship between labor and management but also on the general peace and progress of societ , the law has provided limitations on the right to strike! Aor a strike to be valid, the following procedural re.uisites provided b Art! 082 of the Labor Code must be observed9 &a' a notice of strike filed with the D*L, 2: da s before the intended date thereof, or (7 da s in case of unfair labor practiceB &b' strike vote approved b a ma>orit of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned obtained b secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose, &c' notice given to the D*L, of the results of the voting at least seven da s before the intended strike! These re.uirements are mandator and the failure of a union to compl therewith renders the strike illegal!2< 1t is clear in this case that petitioners totall ignored the statutor re.uirements and embarked on their illegal strike! )e .uote, with approval, the ruling of the CA which affirmed the decisions of the NLRC and of the Labor Arbiter9

Ins6lar 4i7e Ass6rance Co. 4t(, Employees v. Ins6lar 4i7e Ass6rance Co. 4t(., !" SCRA 2 #"1% !. (CRA 2)) CA(TR0% /an&ary !1' -@.NAT2RE Appeal, b certiorari to review a decision and a resolution en banc of the Court of 1ndustrial Relations dated August (?, (<87 and *ctober 0:, (<87, respectivel , in Case (8<@-;L/! 3ACT( - "ecause of *ea*4oc, and stalemate on C"A, the ;nions went on a strike and +ic,ete* on the premises of the emplo er! - Ins&4ar Life, through *lbes, its president, sent to eac9 of the strikers a 4etter .uoted verbatim as follows9 )e recogniCe it is our +ri6i4e7e both to strike and to conduct picketing! Dowever, if an of ou wo&4* 4i,e to co8e #ac, to wor, 6o4&ntari4y , ou ma 9 (! Advise the nearest police officer or securit guard of our intention to do so! 0! Take our 8ea4s within the office! 2! #ake a choice whether to go home at the end of the da or to sleep nights at the office where co8forta#4e cots have been prepared! 6! ,n>o free coffee and occasiona4 8o6ies! 7! "e paid o6erti8e for wor, performed in e%cess of eight hours! 8! "e sure arrangements will be made for our families! The decision to make is ours whether ou still believe in the motives of the strike or in the fairness of the #anagement! - ;nions continued strike with the e%ception of a few emplo ees! - Arom the date the strike was called until it was called off, some 8ana7e8ent 8en tried to #rea, thru the ;nions$ +ic,et 4ines! Earcia, assistant cor+orate secretary, and Abella, c9ief of t9e +ersonne4 recor*s section, respectivel of the Companies, tried to +enetrate the +ic,et 4ines in front of the 1nsular Life "uilding! Earcia, upon approaching the picket line, tosse* aside the placard of a picketer, one /aulino "uga B a fi79t ensued between them, in which both suffered in>uries! The Companies organiCed three bus-loads of emplo ees, including a +9oto7ra+9er, who with respondent *lbes, succeeded in penetrating the picket lines in front of the 1nsular Life "uilding, thus causing in>uries to the picketers and also to the strike-breakers due to the resistance offered b some picketers! - Alleging that some non-strikers were in>ured and with the use of photographs as evidence, the Companies then filed cri8ina4 c9ar7es against the strikers with the Cit Aiscal$s *ffice of #anila! During the pendenc of the said cases in the fiscal$s office, the Companies likewise filed a petition for in>unction with damages with CA1 #anila which, on the basis of the pendenc of the various criminal cases against striking

members of the ;nions, issued an order restraining the strikers, until further orders of the said court, from stopping, impeding, obstructing, etc! the free and peaceful use of the Companies$ gates, entrance and drivewa and the free movement of persons and vehicles to and from, out and in, of the Companies$ building! - 1nsular Life, again through *lbes, sent individuall to the strikers a letter .uoted hereunder in its entiret 9 The first da of the strike was last 0( #a (<7@! *ur position remains unchanged and the strike has made us even more convinced of our decision! )e do not know how long ou intend to sta out, but we cannot hold our positions open for long! )e have continued to operate and will continue to do so with or without ou! 1f ou are still interested in continuing in the emplo of the Eroup Companies, and if there are no criminal charges pending against ou, we are giving ou until 0 Fune (<7@ to report for work at the home office! 1f b this date ou have not et reported, we ma be forced to obtain our replacement! "efore, the decisions was ours to make! -o it is now! - 1ncidentall , all of the more than (0: criminal charges filed against the members of the ;nions, e%cept 2, were dismissed b the fiscal$s office and b the courts! - At an rate, because of the issuance of the writ of preliminar in>unction against them as well as the ultimatum of the Companies giving them until Fune 0, (<7@ to return to their >obs or else be replaced, the striking emplo ees decided to call off their strike and to report back to work on Fune 0, (<7@! - Dowever, before readmitting the strikers, the Companies re.uired them not onl to secure clearances from the Cit Aiscal$s *ffice of #anila but also to be screened b a management committee! The screening committee initiall re>ected @2 strikers with pending criminal charges! Dowever, all non-strikers with pending criminal charges which arose from the breakthrough incident were readmitted immediatel b the Companies without being re.uired to secure clearances from the fiscal$s office! -ubse.uentl , when practicall all the strikers had secured clearances from the fiscal$s office, the Companies readmitted onl some but adamantl refused readmission to 26 officials and members of the ;nions who were most active in the strike, on the ground that the committed 3acts inimical to the interest of the respondents,3 without however stating the specific acts allegedl committed! Among those who were refused readmission is Alorencio 1barra, president of the AE; 1nsurance Eroup )orkers G ,mplo ees Association-NAT;! -ome 06 of the above number were ultimatel notified months later that the were being dismissed retroactivel as of Fune 0, (<7@ and given separation pa checks computed under Rep! Act (?@?, while others &ten in number' up to now have not

been readmitted although there have been no formal dismissal notices given to them! I((2E=( (! )*N an emplo ee ma be refused readmission because he committed acts inimical to the interest of the respondents when, as ;nion president, he advised the strikers that the could use force and violence to have a successful picket and that picketing was precisel intended to prevent the non-strikers and compan clients and customers from entering the Companies$ buildings! HELD (! N* Reasonin& ,ven if this were true, the record discloses that the +ic,et 4ine 9a* #een 7enera44y +eacef&4, and that inci*ents happened onl when manage8ent 8en 8a*e inc&rsions into an* trie* to #rea, t9e +ic,et 4ine. At an rate, with or without the advice of 1barra, +ic,etin7 is in9erent4y e5+4osi6e! Aor, as pointed out b one author, 3The +ic,et 4ine is an e5+4osi6e front, charged with the e8otions and fierce 4oya4ties of the union-management dispute! 1t ma be marked b colorful na8e:ca44in7, inti8i*atin7 t9reats or s+ora*ic fi79ts between the pickets 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 which is not a bar to reinstatement! 'isposition ACC*RD1NEL+, the decision of the Court of 1ndustrial Relations dated August (?, (<87 is reversed and set aside, and another is entered, ordering the respondents to reinstate the dismissed members of the petitioning ;nions to their former or comparativel similar positions, with backwages from Fune 0, (<7@ up to the dates of their actual reinstatements! Costs against the respondents!

Sec6rity Ban8 Employees Union v. Sec6rity Ban8 an( -r6st Co., 2! SCRA 5$! #9:% R,+,-, F"LB #arch 0@, (<8< NAT;R, /etition for certiorari with preliminar in>unction to annul 3ACT( 1n a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminar in>unction, dated Fanuar (7, (<8@, petitioners being the (ec&rity Ban, E8+4oyees 2nion:NAT2, hereinafter referred to as the Local ;nion, and Ruben /uertollano, who according to the petition, is its president, it was stated that on *ctober 0:, (<8?, the petitioner-union filed a notice of stri,e with the Department of Labor, complaining of unfair labor practices committed b the respondent (ec&rity Ban, an* Tr&st Co. against petitioners and consisting of the following acts9 3&(' Interference with, restraint and coercion of emplo ees in their rights to self-organiCationB and &0' Assistance to and support of a labor organiCation fa6ore* #y 8ana7e8ent!3( Then came the assertion that on *ctober 0(, (<8?, the respondent "ank in an obvious attempt to invest the Court of Airst 1nstance of #anila, presided b respondent Fudge, with >urisdiction over the labor dispute it had with petitioners, filed with said court a complaint against petitioners for damages with preliminar in>unction, alleging that the fi4in7 of a stri,e notice b petitioners on *ctober 0:, (<8? was 6io4ati6e of the e5istin7 Co44ecti6e Bar7ainin7 A7ree8ent!0 The grievance of petitioners against respondent Fudge is that 3in total disregard of repeated pronouncements and in>unctions b this Donorable Court against the grant of ex parte in>unctions and restraining orders in labor disputes, and acting without or in e%cess of >urisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of >urisdiction,3 he issued e; parte a restrainin7 or*er prohibiting the defendants in that case, petitioners here, fro8 sta7in7 or contin&in7 a stri,e or +ic,etin7 3of whatever kind or form, particularl , at plaintiff$s main office at ,scolta, #anila,3 as well as an of its branches!2 Then came the allegations that petitioners, on *ctober 08, (<8?, filed their opposition to the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction on the ground of 4ac, of A&ris*iction on the part of the lower court as well as the fata44y *efecti6e c9aracter of t9e +4ea for inA&nctionB6 that on November 0, (<8?, respondent Fudge issued an order *enyin7 the opposition of petitioners on the ground of the a#sence of a 4a#or *is+&teB7 that on the same date, upon receipt of such order of denial, petitioners filed a motion for reconsiderationB 8 and that on November @, (<8?, respondent "ank filed its opposition to petitioners$ motion for reconsideration!? The lower court, however, in an order b respondent Fudge dated December 02, (<8?, denied the motion for reconsideration of petitioners

principall on the ground that there was no labor dispute, a denial, which, according to the petition, was 3in complete disregard of HtheirI constit&tiona4 ri79t !!!, more specificall the ri79t to +ic,et, !!!3@ Then came the order of Fanuar 2, (<8@, modif ing the writ of +re4i8inary inA&nction issued b it on November 0, (<8?, limiting it to a restraint on Bt9e *efen*ants or t9eir re+resentati6e fro8 +ic,etin7 of whatever kind or form until further orders b HitI!3 < The above actuations of respondent Fudge according to the petition are 3without or in e%cess of >urisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of >urisdiction!3 The plea for preliminar in>unction is premised on the assertion that unless restrained, 3respondent >udge will continue to enforce his ar#itrary an* 9i79:9an*e* or*ers restricting the e%ercise b the petitioners of their Constitutional and legal rights respecting their labor dispute with the respondent bank, which would work 7ra6e an* irre+ara#4e inA&stice to the petitionersB !!!!3(: I((2EC D0N t9e e5 +arte writ of +re4i8inary inA&nction was correct4y iss&e*E The complaint ne%t took up the grounds on which the issuance of an ex parte writ of preliminar in>unction was sought, plaintiff, now respondent "ank, after incorporating and reproducing b reference what had been set forth stressing that such 3concerte* action' +ic,et or stri,e 3 threatened b both defendant NAT; and L## would 3be staged unless restrained3 b the lower court and that in view 3of the sensitive and vulnerable character of plaintiff$s business, substantial and irreparable damage and in>ur will be suffered b plaintiff b reason of an concerted action or strike against it before the matter can be heard on noticeB!!!!3 2( The pra er was for a writ of preliminar in>unction directed to defendants, their officers, members or agents from staging in front of or in the vicinit of plaintiff$s main office as well as an of its branches, an strike or +ic,etin7 of w9ate6er ,in* or form *&rin7 t9e e5istence or +en*ency of any *is+&te or controvers between them as to the affiliation, control and management of the local union with the further plea that after a hearing on the merits, >udgment be rendered 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 be staged b both the L## and the NAT; 3if carried out HwouldI constitute a violation of the collective bargaining agreement!3 Aor it was there provided e%pressl that the Local ;nion, 3its officers, agents and members agree that for the duration of this agreement there shall be no strike, walkout, sitdowns, stoppage of work, strikes, bo cotts, secondar bo cotts, s mpathetic or general strikes, nor an acts of similar nature which would interfere with the normal business operations and work schedules of the "ank, or picketing of an kind or form, however peaceful, and that it will not otherwise permit, countenance, or suffer the e%istence or continuance

of an kind of those acts,3 e%cept in cases of unfair labor practice! 1s this matter then +ro+er4y co7ni;a#4e b the 4ower co&rt, presided b respondent FudgeJ De 9o4* t9at it is not. Arom PAFLU v. an 20 to !ay "iew #otel$ %nc. v. &anila #otel 'orkers Union,22 there has been unwavering adherence to the principle that under the 1ndustrial /eace Act, &nfair 4a#or +ractice cases fall within the e%clusive competence of the Court of 1ndustrial Relations! 1n (epublic )avings !ank v. *ourt of %ndustrial (elations,26 it was held that the grievance procedure provided b collective bargaining agreement must be followed and that whatever obligation is incumbent on either management or labor must be complied with! A failure to perform its dut b either part amounts to a commission of an unfair labor practice! 3Aor collective bargaining does not end with the e%ecution of an agreement! 1t is a continuous process!327 1t being e%pressl provided in the 1ndustrial /eace Act that unfair labor practice is committed b a labor union or its agent b its refusal 3to bargain collectivel with the emplo er3 28 and this Court having decided in the Republic -avings "ank case that collective bargaining does not end with the e%ecution of an agreement, being a continuous process, the dut to bargain necessaril imposing on the parties the obligation to live up to the terms of such a collective bargaining agreement if entered into, it is undeniable that non-compliance therewith constitutes an unfair labor practice! 1t follows that the complaint of respondent "ank in this case, tested b the allegations therein made, should have been filed with the Court of 1ndustrial Relations! Deference to a long line of decisions from PAFLU v. an, une.uivocal in language and imperative in tone, calls for a ruling 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? rel ing on the PAFLU v. an decision, this Court has been committed to the view that A&ris*iction o6er a case in6o46in7 t9e enforce8ent of a co44ecti6e #ar7ainin7 contract rests not with the Court of 1ndustrial Relations but with a Co&rt of 3irst Instance! -uch a principle does not call for application in the present case in view of the Republic -avings "ank doctrine, which if adhered to, as it ought to be, would result in labor litigations of this character being submitted to the Court of 1ndustrial Relations! 1t would thus have the opportunit 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 no agenc is better e.uipped b training, e%perience, and background to handle labor controversies than the Court of 1ndustrial Relations! The observation of Fustice F! "! L! Re es, though sub>ect to .ualifications, still possesses relevance! As noted b him, the re7&4ar co&rts 3have not intervened in labor cases Hsince (<28I, and are therefore i44:+re+are* to a++4y 4a#or 4aws an* +o4icies. And the fre.uenc with which this Court has had to upset their labor in>unctions attests to the fact!3 2@ Aor it is

undeniable that in>unctions in labor disputes under the 1ndustrial /eace Act are not favored, to put it at its mildest! The ma issue onl after a strict and rigorous compliance with the statutor re.uisites! 2! The contention is earnestl pressed b respondent "ank, that the provisions of the 1ndustrial /eace Act do not call for application there being no labor dispute, in which case it suffices to meet the 4ess strin7ent reF&ire8ents of t9e R&4es of Co&rt for the issuance of an in>unction! 1t is to be admitted that as e%pounded in its answer and memorandum, the argument has a ring of plausibilit ! 1t cannot, however, carr the heav burden of persuasion! Aor one thing, the ver allegations of the complaint of respondent "ank on which respondent Fudge acted as well as its pra er betra ed what undoubtedl was its well-founded fear that a strike was in the offing, a strike undoubtedl to be participated in b members of the local union independentl of whether the L## or the NAT; would emerge victorious! 1t would thus be far-fetched to characteriCe such an impasse as lacking the elements 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*er caught in the cross:fire! 1t enlists one$s s mpath , but it cannot with reason assert that its difficulties are in no wa connected with a 4a#or contro6ersy! "esides, it is now too 4ate to consider as 4ac,in7 t9e e4e8ents of a 4a#or *is+&te a situation where ri6a4 &nions 6ie for s&+re8acy! This court has so indicated in at least two decisions, !ala-ue.on rans. Labor Union v. &u/o.0Palma 2< and &alayang &anggagawa sa 1sso v. 1sso )tandard 1astern!6: ,ven if it be granted, however, that the ordinar procedure provided b the Rules of Court could be relied upon, the last mentioned order of respondent Fudge dated Fanuar 2, (<8@, which modified what was issued b him on November 0, (<8? en>oining 3the defendants or their representatives from picketing of whatever kind or form3, 6( still could not survive the >urisdictional test! It s&ffers fro8 t9e fata4 *efect of +ro9i#itin7 any +ic,etin7 Bof w9ate6er ,in* or for8.B This cannot be done consistentl with the 1ndustrial /eace Act, which categoricall provides that no Court, Commission or "oard of the /hilippines 3shall have >urisdiction e%cept as provided in section ten of this Act to issue an restraining order, temporar or permanent in>unction in an case involving or growing out of a labor dispute to prohibit an person or persons participating or interested in such dispute from doing, whether singl or in concert, an of the following acts9 !!! B &7' Eiving publicit to the e%istence of, or the facts involved in an labor dispute, whether b advertising, speaking, patrolling, or b an method not involving fraud or violenceB !!!!360 #oreover, this Court, in *altex (efinery Association v. Lucero ,62 made e%plicit its disapproval of an in>unction against strikes, holding that 3no

Court can issue a restraining order against union members who plan to hold a strike even if the same ma appear to be illegal! 3 That is so in view of the unmistakable language emplo ed in the 1ndustrial /eace Act, with reference to strikes! T9e stat&tory co88an* on +ic,etin7 4i,ewise ca44s for a si8i4ar *ec4aration. The obstacle that bars respondent "ank from attaining its ob>ective to bar all picketing is indeed too formidable to surmount! Also, even without such a categorical mandate e%pressed in the Act, the reco7nition of +eacef&4 +ic,etin7 as a constit&tiona4 ri79t embraced in the freedom of e%pression, dating from the (<6? decision of &ortera v. *ourt of %ndustrial (elations ,66 +rec4&*es t9e iss&ance of s&c9 a #4an,et +ro9i#ition as that imposed in the challenged order of respondent 2udge of Fanuar 2, (<8@! This is not to sa that picketing, like freedom of e%pression in general, has no limits! Certainl , to the e%tent that it is an instrument of coercion rather than of persuasion, it cannot rightfull be entitled to the protection associated with free speech! ,.uall so, there can be no indiscriminate ban on the freedom to disseminate the facts of a labor dispute and to appeal for public s mpath , which is the aim of peaceful picketing, without a transgression of the Constitution, sufficient to oust a court of >urisdiction, even on the assumption that it was originall possessed of such a competence, which was not so in this case as had been earlier made clear! )D,R,A*R,, this petition for certiorari and prohibition is granted and the enforcement of the order of respondent Fudge of *ctober 02, (<8?, the decision of November 0, (<8? and the order of Fanuar 2, (<8@ per permanentl en>oined! )ith costs against respondent -ecurit "ank and Trust Co!

,ortera v. CIR, "< P ! 5 # "% /etitioners pra s for the annulment of the order of the Court of 1ndustrial Relations dated Aebruar 0(, (<6?, in case No! 66 K L&(', entitled Bisi7 n7 Can4&#an7 "NL2$ 6s. Can4&#an7 (&7ar Estate ,3 re.uiring the 4a#orers to ret&rn to t9eir wor, , and, upon failure to do so, authori.ing the Can4&#an7 (&7ar Estate to emplo new 4a#orers to ta,e t9eir +4ace, and +ro9i#itin7 +ic,etin7 under an guise or form /etitioners contend that this order is contrar to law and has been issued without and=or in e%cess of the >urisdiction of he Court of 1ndustrial Relations! The also complain that notwithstanding the fact that the Can4&#an7 Dor,er<s 2nion "CL0$ or its 8e8#ers AR, N*T /ART+ to the case and were not 7i6en t9e o++ort&nity to answer and defend the charges against them or to be heard in connection therewith, the members of said motion were likewise or(ere( to return to work and to desist from e%ercising their right to picket! The Court of the 1ndustrial Relations answered, alleging that it has the authorit and >urisdiction to issue the order of Aebruar 0(, (<6?, b virtue of the provisions of section (< of the Commonwealth Act No! (:2B that said >urisdiction is merel incident to the >urisdiction ac.uired b the court in case No! 66-L, "isig ng Canlubang vs! Canlubang -ugar ,state, and that Her8o7enes >ortera and the signatories and the 8e8#ers of the Can4&#an7 Dor,ers< 2nion "CL0' were 8e8#ers of the Bisi7 n7 Can4&#an7 at the time the court issued the orders of December (: and ((, (<68 The Canlubang -ugar ,state alleged in its answer that the order complied of b petitioners was issued b the Court of 1ndustrial Relations in virtue of section (< of Commonwealth Act No! (:2B that the order against picketing is authoriCed b said sectionB that petitioners became parties in the case when the appeared in case No! 66-L ;pon the evidence presented before it, the Court of 1ndustrial Relations in its order of Aebruar 0(, (<6?, found that in connection with the case of Bisi7 N7 Can4&#an7 "NL2$ 6s. t9e Can4&#an7 (&7ar Estate, No! 66-L, the +etition &nion of December 0, (<68, presented se6era4 *e8an*s relative to increase of wages$ vacation with pay and the granting of gratuity for faithful and long service ! Lacking action on these demands, the workers *ec4are* a stri,e on December <, (<68! The "isig Ng Canlubang filed on the same date a petition against the Canlubang -ugar ,state covering the t9ree *e8an*s s&#8itte* to t9e estate. At the preliminar hearing set on December ((, (<68, the parties a7ree* that the compan would reo+en and that it will rea*8it all the striking laborers with pa from December <, (<68, when the strike was declared, and that an concession that ma be >ustified b the evidence will be made retroactive as of December <, (<68! The .uestion of vacation with pa and gratuit was left o the sound discretion of the Court!

As a result, the laborers were ordered to return to their work under the same conditions e%isting before the strike and that none of them shall be suspended e%cept for that cause and after the authorit of the court is obtained! The workers were also or*ere* not to *ec4are any stri,e while the final determination of the case is +en*in7! *n Aebruar (?, (<6?, aro&n* si5 or se6en 9&n*re* 4a#orers declared a strike! According to petitioners, sai* 4a#orers for8e* a new &nion , the Ca4a8#a Dor,ers 2nion "CL0$ due to the failure of the company to accede to their demands of Aebruar ((, (<6?! )hen the main case was tried and submitted, and especiall at the time of the issuance of the order of December ((, (<68, which was violated b the strike declared in Aebruar (?, (<6?, #ortera and the si% hundred striking workers were members of the "isig ng Canlubang! Iss&e The main .uestion in this case decisive of the whole controvers is w9et9er +etitioners were PARTIE( in case No. )):G' entit4e* Bisi7 n7 Can4&#an7 "NL2$ 6s. Can4&#an7 (&7ar Estate , wherein the order of December ((, (<68, prohibiting the workers from striking was issued! Ratio -;/R,#, C*;RT9 )hen petitioners appeared for the first time before the Court of 1ndustrial Relations as members of the "isig Ng Canlubang &NL;', the appeared as workers of the Canlubang -ugar ,state! )hen the sece*e* fro8 sai* &nion to for8 anot9er, the re8aine* to #e wor,ers of the Canlubang -ugar ,state! The order of December ((, (<68, prohibiting the workers from striking pending decision of the case was addressed to the workers of the Canlubang -ugar ,state! The s+4ittin7 of t9e Can4&#an7 Dor,ers< 2nion into two &nions cannot effect the jurisdiction of the ma even dissolve the union completel but that would not affect the jurisdiction of the court ! *therwise, we would be giving our approval to a scheme b which a workers$ union, in case of an adverse decision of the Court of 1ndustrial Relations, ma alwa s make a 8oc,ery of or*ers and decisions of said court! -uch a result is against the administration of >ustice and is violative of the principles and the purposes for which Commonwealth Act No! (:2 was enacted! The second and last .uestion which we have to consider is the #4an,et +ro9i#ition a7ainst +ic,etin7 in an guise or form contained in the order of Aebruar 0(, (<6?! The prohibition should be understood to cover onl illegal picketing, that is, picketing through the use of illegal means! Peacef&4 +ic,etin7 cannot #e +ro9i#ite* ! 1t is part of the freedom of speech guaranteed b the Constitution! Therefore, the order of the Court of 1ndustrial Relations prohibiting picketing must be understood to refer onl to illegal picketing, that is, picketing through the use of illegal means!

Philippine Association o7 =ree 4a)or Unions v. Clori)el, 2" SCRA 95 2. (CRA ) H REIE(' /BL% >arc9 2J' -@ @ 3ACT( - >etroBan, located at the ground floor of the De44in7ton B4*7 in 806 /laCa Calderon, Binon*o, #anila was +ic,ete* b the /hilippine Association of Aree Labor ;nions & PA3L2'! )ellington complained, however, that the picketers were annoyin74y #4oc,in7 the co88on +assa7eway of t9e #&i4*in7, the only ingress and egress to the second to the sixth floors! The other occupants demanded protection of their peaceful en>o ment of and free access to and from, the premises leased b them! De44in7ton c9ar7e* PA3L2 of &n*&e interference not onl with its enjoyment of its property and business of leasing and administering the same but also with the businesses of the ne&tra4 tenants! - Fudge Cloribel of the CA1 of #anila issued an inA&nction against PA3L2! /AAL; filed the present petition in the -C, alleging that Fudge Cloribel acted without >urisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order, in violation of the 1ndustrial /eace Act! Now9ere in t9e co8+4aint was t9ere an a44e7ation of t9e &na6oi*a#4e' s&#stantia4' an* irre+ara#4e inA&ry to De44in7ton<s +ro+erty as wo&4* A&stify t9e iss&ance of t9e TR0 wit9o&t notice. And neither was there a #on* sufficient to recompense those en>oined for an loss, e%pense, or damage caused b the improvident or erroneous issuance of the order! The -C granted the TR*! - /AAL; filed a supplemental petition for certiorari in the -C protesting the issuance in a different case &filed b co-lessee ,mmanuel Ealang' but b the same >udge, of another in>unction couched in e%actl the same words! I((2E )*N the two cases involve, or grow out of, a labor dispute HELD N*! Reasoning There e%ists no 4a#or *is+&te between /AAL; and either )ellington or Ealang! The strike and the picket are directed against >ETR0BANK, an entirel different and separate entit without connection whatsoever with DeI4in7ton and Ga4an7 other than the incidental fact that the are the bank$s 4an*4or* and co:4essee, respectivel ! Their relationship is so remote that we fail to discern an indicium of said complainants$ interests in the labor dispute between the union and #,TR*"ANM as to make the two cases below fall within the purview of RA <?7 which provides that a labor dispute e%ists 3regardless of whether the disputants stand in the pro%imate relation of emplo er and emplo ee3! The applicable law, therefore, is R&4e HJ of t9e R&4es of Co&rt on inA&nction!

- HNAT;R, G /;R/*-, *A /1CM,T L1N,I The ri79t to +ic,et as a means of co88&nicatin7 t9e facts of a 4a#or *is+&te is a phase of the free*o8 of s+eec9 guaranteed b the constitution! 1f peacefull carried out, it cannot be curtailed even in the absence of emplo er-emplo ee relationship! The right is, however, not a#so4&te! )hile peaceful picketing is entitled to protection as an e%ercise of free speech, courts are not without +ower to confine or 4oca4i;e t9e s+9ere of co88&nication or t9e *e8onstration to the parties to the labor dispute, including those with related interest, and to insulate establishments or persons with no industrial connection or having interest totally foreign to the context of the dispute! Thus the right ma be regulated at the instance of third parties or 3innocent #ystan*ers3 if it appears that the inevitable result of its e%ercise is to create an impression that a labor dispute with which the have no connection or interest e%ists between them and the picketing union or constitute an invasion of their rights! - The -C however ann&44e* #ot9 inA&nctions for fai4&re of #ot9 De44in7ton an* Ga4an7 to fi4e t9e necessary #on*s before issuance of the two preliminar in>unctions as re.uired in Rule 7@ -ec 6! Disposition Certiorari is ERANT,D without pre>udice to the right of )ellington and Ealang to secure other ones after filing the necessar bonds!

C. Pic,etin7 an* Li#e4 Laws Art. !H!' Re6ise* Pena4 Co*e Philippine Commercial an( In(6strial Ban8 Employees Association, 1$5 SCRA !1 #:1% -1H (CRA !-) 3ERNAND0% /&4y 2' -@Jv. Philna)an8

3ACT( - P9i4i++ine Co88ercia4 an* In*&stria4 Ban, filed an action for 4i#e4 against the P9i4i++ine Nationa4 Ban, E8+4oyees? Association as a result of placards and signboards along the PNB #&i4*in7, containing the following9 3PCIB BAD ACC02NT( TRAN(3ERRED T0 PNB:NIDC J3 -ome witnesses testified on9 (! /referring to *e+osit e4sew9ere 0! Deposits *ecrease* The decision of the then Fudge Conrado Las.ueC was to dismiss the complaint! De could not discern an libelous imputation in the alleged offending words! -uch a ruling finds additional support in the s mpathetic approach followed b courts to inacc&racies an* i8+recision in 4an7&a7e in the use of placards as part of peaceful picketing in labor controversies! I((2E )*N the said placards were libelous HELD N*! - There was a labor controvers resulting in a stri,e, fortunatel lasting onl for one *ay! The labor union made use of its constit&tiona4 ri79t to +ic,et! /eaceful picketing is part of the free*o8 of s+eec9 guarantee of the Constitution! - La#or *is+&tes give rise to stron7 e8otiona4 res+onse! 1t is a fact of industrial life, both in the /hilippines as in the ;nited -tates, that in the contin&in7 confrontation between labor and management, it is far fro8 4i,e4y that the language emplo ed would be both co&rteo&s an* +o4ite! - 1n no uncertain terms, it made clear that the >udiciar , in deciding suits for libel, must ascertain whether or not the alleged offending words ma be embraced b the guarantees of free speech and free press! 'isposition Appealed decision is affirmed!

D. E8+4oyer:E8+4oyee Re4ations9i+ 'e 4eon v. 1ational 4a)or Union, 1$$ P ":< #5"% -11 PHIL .J@ PADILLA% /an !1' -@H. NAT2RE Appeal from >udgment of CA1 3ACT( - /laintiffs sought to recover *a8a7es and inA&ncti6e re4ief! - Defendants have been picketing Da4isay T9eater, owned b De Leon' operated by co0plaintiffs! - /urpose is to sec&re reinstate8ent to Ao#s when t9eater was run b 3i4i+ino T9eatrica4 Enter+rises, then a 4essee of parcel of De Leon5s land! - P4acar*s9 - 'o not patroni>e the Dalisa Theater - Dalisa Theater is unfair to labor! - Ha6e 8ercy on the picketeers! - (y8+at9i;e with us! - Due to picketing, bo% office totaled P-'2H1 when a premier of film such as NDi8asO could have earned P2'H11 gross receipt! I((2E )*N strike is illegal HELD N* - )alking back and forth, displa ing placards, do not disturb public peace! - There was no e5istence of a re4ations9i+ of e8+4oyers an* e8+4oyees between plaintiffs and defendants, although purpose of picket is to reinstate defendants! /1CM,T1NE /,AC,A;LL+ CARR1,D *;T 1- N*T 1LL,EAL ,L,N 1N TD, A"-,NC, *A ,#/L*+,R-,#/L*+,, R,LAT1*N-D1/ A*R /,AC,A;L /1CM,T1NE 1- /ART *A TD, AR,,D*# *A -/,,CD! 1n this case, it is undisputed that after defendants were dismissed or laid off from their work at the old Dalisa Theater b the Ailipino Theatrical ,nterprises, 1nc!, the showhouse came under a tota44y *ifferent 8ana7e8ent when it was reopened on Fanuar (:, (<70! There was no e5istence of a re4ations9i+ of e8+4oyees between plaintiffs and defendants, although defendants purpose in picketing plaintiffs was for the defendants$ reinstatement of their services in the new Dalisa Theater under the new #anagement!

Cr6> v. Cinema Sta&e, 1$1 P 125< #5"% -o far it is apparent that courts are primaril concerned in labor cases with defining what Chief Fudge /ound of the highest New +ork court so aptl called 3t9e a44owa#4e area of econo8ic conf4ict!3 The role of the in>unction in labor relations and the enactment of the stringent antiin>unction provisions in the 1ndustrial /eace Act attest to the validit of this statement! "ut the stringenc of the procedural re.uirements, for instance, that the Act imposes find >ustification nevertheless in the irritating potentialities of the in>unction! Thus, significantl , -ection < &d' thereof provides that no court of the /hilippines shall issue a temporar or permanent in>unction in an case involving or growing out of a 4a#or *is+&te e%cept after finding9 3&(' That &n4awf&4 acts have been threatened and will be committed unless restrained, or have been committed and will be continued unless restrained %% %% %%B 3&0' That s&#stantia4 an* irre+ara#4e inA&ry to complainant$s propert will followB 3&2' That as to each item or relief granted 7reater inA&ry will be inflicted upon co8+4ainant b the *enia4 of relief than will be inf4icte* upon defendants b the 7rantin7 of re4iefB 3&6'3 That complainant has no a*eF&ate re8e*y at 4awB and 3&7' That the +&#4ic officers charged with the dut to +rotect complainant$s +ro+erty are unable or &nwi44in7 to furnish a*eF&ate +rotection!O The instant case involves 8ere4y t9e fift9 reF&ire8entB it point-blankl demonstrates the rule of strict construction put b the -upreme Court on the above-enumerated re.uisites! The case, involving t9e +ic,etin7 of the (ociety T9eater on Ec9a7&e (t.' >ani4a, reveals that 3the wor,ers for8e* a circ4e A&st near t9e tic,et:win*ow displa ing +4acar*s and sa ing <Da4an7 awa sa naa4is sa tra#aAo'< <H&wa7 ,ayon7 +&8aso, 8a7,a,a7&4o< 55 55 55 but no arrests were made b the police3 &as per testimon of witness'! The Court of Airst 1nstance issued an inA&nction to restrain t9e +ic,eters. 1n resolving the 6a4i*ity of the in>unction order, the -upreme Court noted particularl that e5ce+t for the statement that no arrests were made b the police, no fin*in7 was made as to the +&#4ic officers< ina#i4ity or &nwi44in7ness to f&rnis9 a*eF&ate +rotection ! ,%plaining the insufficienc of such statement as compliance with the fifth re.uirement, the Court discoursed thus9 3% % % % 1t &the statement' *oes not sa the police were +resent! 1t does not i8+4y the saw the +4acar*s and 9ear* t9e t9reats!

1t *oes not say the were re.uested to make arrests, but declined or were unable to do so! *f course, the statement that <#&t no arrests were 8a*e< might conceivably give rise to the inference some of them were there and in spite of the threats made no arrests! The law however is not satisfie* wit9 8ere +ro#a#4e i8+4ications. ;nder the circumstances there should have been an e5+ress fin*in7 of the officers< ina#i4ity or &nwi44in7ness - i!e!, the were present and beheld acts calling for arrest, or were informed thereof, but declined or were unable to make such arrests!3 The in>unction order was therefore set aside!

E. C&rtai48ent =ree -elephone 3or8ers Union v. Philippine 4on& 'istance Co., 11! SCRA 992 #:2% --! (CRA 2 >AKA(IAR% A+ri4 2.' -@J2 3ACT( *n November (, (<86, petitioner *ec4are* a stri,e against respondent co8+any to #rea, an i8+asse over negotiations on a 21:+oint econo8ic *e8an*, among which was a demand for wage increase covering a period of three ears - (<86 to (<8?! *n November 2, (<86, the /resident of the /hilippines, upon authorit of -ection (: of Republic Act No! @?7 H1ndustrial /eace ActI, certified the labor dispute as one clearl affectin7 an in*&stry in*is+ensa#4e to t9e nationa4 interest , to the Court of 1ndustrial Relations, hereinafter referred to as respondent C1R! *n November <, (<86, the respondent C1R, after hearing, issued a partial decision! Arom the above November <, (<86 partial decision, petitioner interposed an appeal with the -upreme Court mainl on the sufficienc of the amount granted as increase! The -upreme Court affirmed, on Ful 2(, (<?:, the November <, (<86 decision of the respondent C1R and held that the si%teen centavo H/:!(8I increase per hour per emplo ee effective for a period of one H(I ear from November <, (<86, was supported b substantial evidence! #eanwhile, or on April 0(, (<87, Re+&#4ic Act No. )-J1 was enacted, raisin7 t9e 8ini8&8 wa7e to /8!:: a da ! Accordingl , respondent compan increase* t9e wa7es of its workers who were receiving below /8! :: a da , in addition to the /*!(8 per hour previousl awarded b the respondent C1R in its partial decision of November <, (<86! *n April 0?, (<87, petitioner asked for wa7e re:a*A&st8ent ne7otiations with the respondent compan , claiming that when the respondent compan a6tomatically raise( the minim6m ?a&es of its emplo ees receiving less than /8!:: a da in compliance with R! A! 6(@:, a +ro+ortionate increase wit9 res+ect to t9ose e8+4oyees a4rea*y recei6in7 P .11 a *ay at the effectivit of R! A! 6(@: should be s&#Aect of ne7otiations! Respondent compan countered that it co&4* not ne7otiate with petitioner on the matter because such wa7e re:a*A&st8ent would, in effect, be a wa7e increase which was connected with the wage increase demand of petitioner in t9e +en*in7 case certified on November 2, (<86 b the /resident of the /hilippines! Conse.uentl , petitioner presented on #a 8, (<87 to respondent compan a *e8an* for an a&to8atic P1.2H +er 9o&r wa7e increase for all rank-and-file emplo ees receiving above /:!?7 per hour on account of the implementation of the new statutor minimum wage of /8!:: a da ! *n #a (?,(<87, when Case No! 7(-1/A, was still pending decision,

petitioner again filed a notice of strike with the Department of Labor for refusal of respondent compan to negotiate on its demand for wage ad>ustment under Republic Act No! 6(@:, which allegedl constitutes unfair labor practice! *n Fune 0, (<87, respondent co8+any, sensing that petitioner would reall go on stri,e, filed with respondent C1R a +etition for t9e iss&ance of writ of +re4i8inary inA&nction as an incident of pending Case No! 7(1/A! Respondent compan pra ed therein of the respondent C1R to en>oin petitioner from stri,in7 as petitioner and respondent compan had previousl agreed on #arch 2, (<87 to submit all further disputes to the respondent C1R and that a strike under the situation would violate respondent C1R$s November <, (<86 order! *n Fune 2, (<87, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the aforesaid petition of Fune 0, (<87 on the ground that respondent C1R has no >urisdiction to consider it! *n Ful 8, (<87, the respondent C1R acting in Case No! 7(-1/A H0I confirmed the action of the Dearing ,%aminer therein and issued a temporar restraining order en>oining petitioner from declaring a strike or an specie thereof *&rin7 t9e +en*ency of t9e iss&e of A&ris*iction ! *n Ful ?, (<87, petitioner filed with the respondent C1R a motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid order, alleging substantiall the same grounds contained in its Fune 2, (<87 motion to dismiss! *n the same da , petitioner declared a strike! According to petitioner, the strike was precipitated b the H(I summar dismissal of two of its members without a prior investigation at which it should be representedB and H0I respondent compan $s continued refusal to negotiate on its demand for wage read>ustment! *n Ful @, (<87, respondent compan filed with the respondent C 1 R an urgent motion to declare the Ful ?, (<87 strike of petitioner illegal, the same being violative of the no-strike order of Ful 8, (<87 and the court$s partial decision of November <, (<86, and pra ing that the strikers be ordered to return to work or else forfeit their >obs! Respondent compan further pra ed therein that petitioner and its officers and agents and=or s mpathiCers be directed to lift and remove the pickets posted in the different premises of the compan and that the strike of the petitioner be declared illegal and the officers of the petitioner be held in contempt of court and, therefore, to have lost their status as emplo ees effective Ful ?! (<87, the date of the strike! *n Ful <, (<87, petitioner moved to dismiss the aforesaid respondent compan $s urgent motion! *n Ful (8, (<87, after due hearing, the trial >udge of respondent C1R issued an order den ing petitioner$s Fune 2, (<87 motion to dismiss respondent compan $s Fune 0, (<87 petition for the issuance of writ of preliminar in>unction! *n Ful (?, (<87, petitioner, without first returning to work as above directed, filed with the respondent C1R its motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid Ful (8, (<87 order! )ith the above motion for reconsideration still unacted upon b the respondent C1R, petitioner on Ful (<, (<87 filed with this Court its urgent petition for certiorari and prohibitor and

mandator in>unction docketed as E! R! No! L-06?77, .uestioning the power and >urisdiction of respondent C1R! *n Ful 0:, (<87, this Court dismissed the aforesaid petition for 3being premature and for lack of merit3 *n Ful 2(, (<87 respondent C1R denied petitioner$s Ful (?, (<87 motion for reconsideration of the Ful 8 and (8, (<87 orders of the trial >udge /aredes! Dence, this recourse of petitioner, .uestioning the validit of the aforesaid Ful 8 and (8, (<87 orders of the C1R and the Ful 2(, (<87 en banc resolution of respondent C1R! The order of Ful 8, (<87 en>oined petitioner union from declaring a strike or an specie thereof during the pendenc of the issue raised in its motion to dismiss! *n the other hand, the order of Ful (8, (<879 HaI directed petitioner union, its officers, agents and=or assigns and s mpathiCers9 &(' to call-off the strike declared on Ful ?, (<87B and &0' to lift the +ic,et 4ines established in and around the premises of respondent compan $s 6ario&s offices an* insta44ations! HbI en>oined the persons manning the picket lines in these places from impeding and interfering with the implementation of said order as well as from interfering in an manner with the operations of respondentB HcI directed the striking emplo ees to return to work within three H2I da s from receipt of a cop of the order b petitionerB and HdI authoriCed respondent compan to replace an and an of such striking emplo ees, who fail to return to work within the said period of three H2I da s, provided that emplo ees who shall have been replaced ma be reinstated b the Court after due hearing and after establishing good and valid grounds for their failure to return to work as directed in the order! I((2E )*N respondent CIR<s or*er of Ful (8, (<87 6io4ates the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech because it called for the 4iftin7 of +eacef&4 +ic,et 4ines! HELD N*! 1ndeed, it is now well-settled that +eacef&4 +ic,etin7 cannot be restrained because the same is part of the free*o8 of s+eec9 &/C1" v! /N",A (:7 -CRA 2(6, 2(@ H(<@(IB Associated Labor ;nion vs! EomeC, <8 -CRA 77( H(<@:IB #ortera v! C1R, ?< /hil! 267 H(<6?IB /AAL; vs! "arot, << /hil! (::@ H(<78IB De Leon vs! NL; (:: /hil! ?@< H(<7?I'! "ut petitioner fails to realiCe that the .uestioned Ful (8, (<87 order of the Court of 1ndustrial Relations *i* not refer to +eacef&4 +ic,etin7 ! Aor the order partl reads, thus9 /ursuant to the /artial Decision in relation to -ection (< of C! A! (:2, as amended, the petitioner union, its officers, agents and=or assigns and s mpathiCers are hereb *irecte* to ca44 off t9e stri,e *ec4are* on Ful ?, (<87, and to 4ift t9e +ic,et 4ines esta#4is9e* in an* aro&n* t9e +re8ises of respondent compan $s various offices and installations in #anila, PueCon Cit , /asa Cit , Caloocan Cit , Dagupan Cit , "aguio Cit ,

-an /ablo Cit , 1loilo Cit , "acolod Cit , Cebu Cit , Qamboanga Cit , #akati, RiCal, #andalu ong, RiCal, -an Fuan, RiCal, -an Aernando, /ampanga, #abalacat, /ampanga, Lucena, PueCon and "aler, PueCon! The persons manning the picket lines in these places are hereb enAoine* from i8+e*in7 an* interferin7 with the implementation of this *rder as well as from interferin7 in any 8anner wit9 t9e o+erations of respondent!! 1n #ortera, supra, where the therein .uestioned order partl declared that 3picketing under an guise and form is hereb prohibited,3 this Court ruled that the 3or*er of the Court of 1ndustrial Relations prohibiting picketing must be understood to refer on4y to i44e7a4 +ic,etin7 , that is, +ic,etin7 t9ro&79 t9e &se of i44e7a4 8eans ! Peaceful picketing cannot be prohibited! 1t is part of the freedom of speech guaranteed b the Constitution! Therefore, the order of the Court of 1ndustrial Relations must be understood to refer onl to i44e7a4 +ic,etin7, that is, picketing through the use of illegal means3 Hp! 27(I! 1n this case, the .uestioned order should also be taken as limited to the lifting of the picket lines which constituted illegal picketing especiall so because it e%pressl stated that the petitioner union and its officers, agents or s mpathiCers 3are hereb directed to call-off the strike declared on Ful ?, (<87, and to lift the picket lines established in and around the premises of respondent compan $s various offices and installations! The persons manning the picket lines in these places are hereb en>oined from impeding and interfering with implementation of this *rder as well as from interfering in an manner with the operations of respondent!3 'ispositive (esolution affirmed

1a&8a8aisan& ,an&&a&a?a sa C6i>on 0otel v. 4i)ron, 12 SCRA : #:!% -2) (CRA ))J 3ERNAND0% A&7&st !-' -@J!. NAT2RE -Certiorari proceeding 3ACT( -the La#or Ar#iter came out with this decision9 3H)herefore, premises consideredI, the strike staged on April (7, (<@2 should be, as it is hereb , *ec4are* i44e7a4, and, therefore, the respondent union and its members are permanentl enAoine* from staging such illegal strikeB ordering and declaring, pursuant to Article 087, par! &a' of the Labor Code, as amended, a44 t9e &nion officers led b Car4ito E4ea;ar' >arciano >acaraya an* Cesar Ia+ to have 4ost t9eir e8+4oy8ent status for participating in an illegal strike and committing unlawful acts during the strikeB and ordering the respondent union to pa the petitioner the amount of /esos Three Dundred Thirt Nine Thousand &/22<,:::!::', representing losses in income suffered during the illegal strike in the concept of actual damage!3 The clarificator order continues9 3The conseF&ences resulting from the *ec4aration of a strike as illegal, which is final and immediatel e5ec&tory, carries with it sanctions on the i88e*iate inci*ents thereto such as +ic,etin7, o#str&ction of in7ress an* e7ress , the #anners an* strea8ers #ein7 9&n7 in t9e +re8ises and 8a,es9ifts #&i4t within the i88e*iate 6icinity of t9e esta#4is98ent struck! *nce the strikers are permanentl en>oined from staging the illegal strike, the +ic,etin7 staged should also be simultaneously lifted, the obstruction of ingress and egress removed and the makeshifts taken out! 1n other words, the in>unction of the illegal strike and the incidents thereto is selfe%ecuting and it behooves upon the part concerned to seek, if necessar , the assistance of the law enforcers to enforce the same!3 1ts last paragraph reads9 3The other matters in the afore.uoted dispositive portion of our decision, that of termination of the emplo ment status of union officers and the award of damages, are also final and e%ecutor , unless appealed to the Commission within the reglementar period!3 -the labor union filed petition before the -upreme Court I((2E )*N w9o4esa4e con*e8nation of peaceful picketing is bereft of support in law HELD -IE(. D9o4esa4e con*e8nation of +eacef&4 +ic,etin7 is 4i,ewise c4ear4y #ereft of s&++ort in 4aw. As pointed out in a ver recent decision decided this ear, /hil! Assn! of Aree Labor ;nions &/AAL;' v! CA1 of RiCal9 31t need not be stressed that peaceful picketing is embraced in freedom of e%pression! As emphaticall declared in /hilippine Commercial G 1ndustrial "ank v! /hilnabank ,mplo ees$ Association9 $Arom the time of #ortera v! Court of 1ndustrial Relations, a (<6? decision this Court has been committed to the view that peaceful picketing is part of the freedom of speech guarantee of the Constitution!$ Reference was made in such opinion to Associated Labor ;nion v! EomeC! 1n that case, the Court

characteriCed the orders complained of as being $fatall defective, suffering as it did from the infirmit that peaceful picketing was en>oined!$ 1t is in that sense that /residential Decree No! @6< was a step in the right direction for the status of picketing was again accorded due recognition!3 1n the answer, reference was made to the alleged commission of acts of 6io4ence against non:stri,in7 e8+4oyees and even against the ei79ty: year o4* 3sickl and paral tic /resident3 of respondent! 1t is to be understood, of course, that the peaceful picketing authoriCed cannot certainl countenance acts of illegalit ! The interim "atasang /ambansa has spoken on the sub>ect thus9 3&e' No +erson en7a7e* in +ic,etin7 s9a44 co88it any act of 6io4ence , coercion or intimidation or obstruct the free ingress to or egress from the emplo er$s premises for lawful purposes, or obstruct public thoroughfares!3 Dis+osition 1n view of the settlement of the labor dispute between the parties, and the workers are back to work-Dismissed for being moot and academic

3. Restrictions' Innocent T9ir* Party R&4e an* Lia#i4ities 4i?ay?ay P6)lishin& Co., Inc. v. Permanent Concrete 3or8ers Union, 1$: SCRA 191 #:1% -1J (CRA - - G2ERRER0% 0cto#er 2!' -@JNAT2RE -This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Airst 1nstance 3ACT( -)hile a 4a#or *is+&te between defendant-appellant &nion and Per8anent Concrete Pro*&cts, 1nc! was pending before the Court of 1ndustrial Relations, the Court of Airst 1nstance of #anila issued in an action for *a8a7es filed b the plaintiff-appellee Liwayway P&#4ications, 1nc! a writ of preliminary injunction against appellant &nion which +ic,ete* and +re6ente* entrance to the 7ate leading to the #o*e7a of appellee and t9reatene* its officers an* e8+4oyees despite the fact that the appellee is not in anyway related to the stri,in7 &nion but a mere s&#4essee of said #o*e7a in the compound of Per8anent Concrete Pro*&cts' Inc. against whom the strike was staged! Appellant union filed a 8otion to *is8iss an* 8otion to *isso46e the writ on the ground that onl the Court of 1ndustrial Relations and not the Court of Airst 1nstance has e;cl6sive @6ris(iction over the la)or (isp6teB that the appellee has no ca6se o7 action against the striking union but against the lessorB and that plaintiff-appellee is not the real party in interest but Permanent Concrete Pro(6cts, Inc! The lower court (enie( the motion for lac8 o7 la)or (isp6te between the plaintiff and defendant of which the Court of 1ndustrial Relations ma take cogniCance and rendered a decision declaring the writ permanent and ordering the pa ment of damages, attorne $s fees and costs! I((2E )*N this case involves or has arisen out of a labor dispute! 1f it does, 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 govern the issuance of the writ of preliminar in>unction because it will not partake the nature of a labor in>unction which the lower court has no >urisdiction to issue! HELD N0. The )6siness of the appellee is e5c4&si6e4y the +&#4ication of the 8a7a;ines Bannawa7, Bisaya, Hi4i7aynon and Liwayway wee,4y 8a7a;ines w9ic9 have absolutely no relation or connection whatsoever with the ca6se o7 the stri8e o7 the 6nion against their compan , much less with the terms, conditions or demands of the strikers! The appellee is a t9ir* +arty or an Binnocent #y:stan*erB whose right has been in6a*e* and, therefore, entit4e* to +rotection b the regular courts! -The right to picket as a means of communicating the facts of a labor dispute is a phase of the freedom of speech guaranteed b the

constitution! If +eacef&44y carrie* o&t' it cannot #e c&rtai4e* e6en in t9e a#sence of e8+4oyer:e8+4oyee re4ations9i+! The right is, however, not an a#so4&te one! )hile peaceful picketing is entitled to protection as an e%ercise of free speech, we believe that courts are not without power to confine or 4oca4i;e t9e s+9ere of co88&nication or the *e8onstration to t9e +arties to t9e 4a#or *is+&te , including those with re4ate* interest, and to ins&4ate esta#4is98ents or +ersons with no in*&stria4 connection or having interest tota44y forei7n to the conte5t of t9e *is+&te ! Thus, the right ma be regulated at the instance of third parties or Rinnocent b standers$ if it appears that the inevitable result of its e%ercise is to create an impression that a labor dispute with which the have no connection or interest e%ists between them and the picketing union or constitute an invasion of their rights! 1n one case decided b this Court, we upheld a trial court$s in>unction prohibiting the union from blocking the entrance to a feed mill located within the compound of a flour mill with which the union had a dispute! Although sustained on a different ground, no connection was found other than their being sit&ate* in t9e sa8e +re8ises ! 1t is to be noted that in the instances cited, peaceful picketing has not been totall banned but merel regulated! 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 was en>oined b the court from being e%tended in front of the main entrance of the building housing the theater wherein other stores operated b third persons were located! -*n appeal, the -upreme Court in upholding the >urisdiction of the lower court to issue the writ of preliminar in>unction, ruled that9 &a' there is no connection between the appellee, the appellant union and the /ermanent Concrete /roducts, 1nc! and the fact, that the latter and appellee are situated in t9e sa8e +re8ises, can hardl be considered as interwoven with the labor dispute pending with the Court of 1ndustrial RelationsB and &b' the acts of the striking union are mere acts of tres+ass for which the lessee shall have a direct action against the trespasser! Dis+osition Decision appealed from, affirmed in toto!

,S= -ire an( R6))er Inc. v. CA, !11 SCRA ": #<<% !-- (CRA .J) >END0KA% A&7&st H' -@@@ NAT2RE /etiton for review on certiorari of a decision of the CA 3ACT( -A labor dispute arose between P9i4trea* Tire an* R&##er Cor+oration "P9i4trea*$ an* private respondent, P9i4trea* Tire Dor,ers? 2nion "2nion$ -;nion filed a notice of stri,e in the Nationa4 Conci4iation an* >e*iation Boar* charging P9i4trea* with &nfair 4a#or +ractices for allegedl engaging in &nion:#&stin7 for violation of the provisions of the co44ecti6e #ar7ainin7 a7ree8ent! -Thereafter, the +ic,ete* an* asse8#4e* o&tsi*e t9e 7ate of /hiltread5s +4ant! -/hiltread, on the other hand, filed a notice of 4oc,o&t! -The -ecretar of Labor ass&8e* A&ris*iction over the labor dispute and certifie* it for co8+&4sory ar#itration! -During the pendenc of the labor dispute, P9i4trea* entered into a >e8oran*&8 of A7ree8ent with (ia8 Tyre P&#4ic Co8+any Li8ite* "(ia8 Tyre$ whereb its +4ant an* eF&i+8ent would be so4* to a new compan , herein petitioner, J1L of which would be owned b -iam T re and 21L b /hiltread, while the 4an* on which the plant was located would be so4* to another compan , 8:S of which would be owned b /hiltread and 6:S b -iam T re! -/etitioner then asked respondent ;nion to *esist from picketing outside its plant! -As the respondent ;nion refused petitioner5s re.uest, petitioner filed a complaint for inA&nction wit9 *a8a7es before the Re7iona4 Tria4 Co&rt of #akati! -Respondent ;nion 8o6e* to *is8iss the complaint alleging 4ac, of A&ris*iction on the part of the trial court! -The trial court denied petitioner5s a++4ication for inA&nction and *is8isse* the complaint! -Dowever, on petitioner5s motion, the trial court reconsidered its order and granted an in>unction! -The respondent ;nion filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the CA! -CA ruled in favor of respondent ;nion, hence, petitioner filed this petition asserting that its status as an Ainnocent )ystan(erB entitled it to a writ of injunction. I((2E )*N petitioner has shown a clear legal right to the issuance of a writ of in>unction under the Ninnocent b standerO rule HELD No! -1n Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions 3PAFLU4 v. *loribel , this Court, through Fustice F!"!L! Re es, stated the Ninnocent b standerO rule

as follows9 The right to picket as a means of communicating the facts of a labor dispute is a phase of the freedom of speech guaranteed b the constitution! 1f peacefull carried out, it can not be curtailed even in the absence of emplo er-emplo ee relationship! -The right is, however, not an absolute one! )hile peaceful picketing is entitled to protection as an e%ercise of free speech, we believe the courts are not without power to confine or 4oca4i;e t9e s+9ere of co88&nication or the demonstration to the parties to the labor dispute, including those with related interest, and to insulate establishments or persons with no industrial connection or having interest totall foreign to the conte%t of the dispute! -Thus the right ma be regulated at the instance of third parties or Ninnocent b standersO if it appears that the inevitable result of its e%ercise is to create an impression that a labor dispute with which the have no connection or interest e%ists between them and the picketing union or constitute an invasion of their rights! -Thus, an Ninnocent b stander,O who seeks to en>oin a labor strike, must satisf the court that aside from the grounds specified in Rule 7@ of the Rules of Court, it is entirel different from, without an connection whatsoever to, either part to the dispute and, therefore, its interests are totall foreign to the conte%t thereof! -1n the case at bar, petitioner cannot #e sai* not to 9a6e s&c9 connection to t9e *is+&te. 0As correctl observed b the appellate court9 we find that the Nne7otiation' contract of sa4e' an* t9e +ost transaction O between P9i4trea*, as vendor, and (ia8 Tyre, as vendee, reveals a 4e7a4 re4ation between them which, in the interest of petitioner, we cannot ignore! To be sure, the transaction between /hiltread and -iam T re, was not a si8+4e sa4e whereb /hiltread ceased to have an proprietar rights over its sold assets! *n the contrar , /hiltread remains as 0:S owner of private respondent and 8:S owner of -ucat Land Corporation which was likewise incorporated in accordance with the terms of the #emorandum of Agreement with -iam T re, and which now owns the land were sub>ect plant is located! This, together with the fact that private respondent uses the same plant or factor B similar or substantiall the same working conditionsB same machiner , tools, and e.uipmentB and manufacture the same products as /hiltread, lead us to safel conclude that private respondent5s +ersona4ity is so c4ose4y 4in,e* to P9i4trea* as to #ar its entit4e8ent to an inA&ncti6e writ. 'isposition /etition is denied!

Pro9i#ite* Acti6ities Peacef&4 Pic,etin7 2 ) "#$' Arts. 2J@ an* !-2 Re6ise* Pena4 Co*e Art. 2 ). Pro9i#ite* acti6ities. a! No labor organiCation or emplo er shall declare a strike or lockout without first having bargained collectivel in accordance with Title L11 of this "ook or without first having filed the notice re.uired in the 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 certification or submission of the dispute to compulsor or voluntar arbitration or during the pendenc of cases involving the same grounds for the strike or lockout! An worker whose emplo ment has been terminated as a conse.uence of an unlawful lockout shall be entitled to reinstatement with full backwages! An union officer who knowingl participates in an illegal strike and an worker or union officer who knowingl participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike ma be declared to have lost his emplo ment status9 /rovided, That mere participation of a worker in a lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his emplo ment, even if a replacement had been hired b the emplo er during such lawful strike! b! No person shall obstruct, impede, or interfere with, b force, violence, coercion, threats or intimidation, an peaceful picketing b emplo ees during an labor controvers or in the e%ercise of the right to self-organiCation or collective bargaining, or shall aid or abet such obstruction or interference! c! No emplo er shall use or emplo an strike-breaker, nor shall an person be emplo ed as a strike-breaker! d! No public official or emplo ee, including officers and personnel of the New Armed Aorces of the /hilippines or the 1ntegrated National /olice, or armed person, shall bring in, introduce or escort in an manner, an individual who seeks to replace strikers in entering or leaving the premises of a strike area, or work in place of the strikers! The police force shall keep out of the picket lines unless actual violence or other criminal acts occur therein9 /rovided, That nothing herein shall be interpreted to prevent an public officer from 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, (<@8' No person engaged in picketing shall commit an act of violence, coercion or intimidation or obstruct the free ingress to or egress from the emplo er5s premises for lawful purposes, or obstruct public thoroughfares! &As amended b "atas /ambansa "ilang 00?, Fune (, (<@0'

PART NINE LAB0R IN/2NCTI0N I. DE3INITI0N AND NAT2RE (ee any Law Dictionary Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. 14RC, 2:" SCRA 9"2 #<:% 3ACT( /rivate respondents are f4i79t stewar*s of the petitioner! "oth were *is8isse* from the service for their a44e7e* in6o46e8ent in the April 2, (<<2 c&rrency s8&774in7 in Hon7 Kon7! Aggrieved b said dismissal, private respondents filed with the NLRC a +etition - for inA&nction pra ing that9 1! ;pon filing of this /etition, a te8+orary restrainin7 or*er be issued, prohibiting respondents &petitioner herein' from effecting or enforcing the Decision dated Aeb! 00, (<<7, or to reinstate petitioners te8+orari4y while a hearing on the propriet of the issuance of a writ of preliminar in>unction is being undertakenB 11! After hearing, a writ of +re4i8inary 8an*atory inA&nction be issued ordering respondent to reinstate petitioners to their former positions pending the hearing of this case, or, prohibiting respondent from enforcing its Decision dated Aebruar 00, (<<7 while this case is pending ad>udicationB 111! After hearing, that the writ of preliminar in>unction as to the reliefs sought for be made permanent, that petitioners be awarded full backwages, moral damages of /D/ 7::,:::!:: each and e%emplar damages of /D/ 7::,:::!:: each, attorne $s fees e.uivalent to ten percent of whatever amount is awarded, and the costs of suit! *n April 2, (<<7, the NLRC issued a temporar mandator in>unction 2 en>oining petitioner to cease and desist from enforcing its Aebruar 00, (<<7 #emorandum of dismissal! 1n granting the writ, the NLRC considered the following facts, to wit9 ! ! ! that almost two &0' ears ago, i!e! on April (7, (<<2, the petitioners were instructed to atten* an in6esti7ation b respondent$s B(ec&rity an* 3ra&* Pre6ention (&#:De+art8entB regarding an April 2, (<<2 inci*ent in Dongkong at which Foseph Abaca, respondent$s Avionics #echanic in Dongkong 3was interce+te* b the Hon7,on7 Air+ort Po4ice at Eate :7 ! ! ! the ramp area of the Mai Tak 1nternational Airport while ! ! ! about to e%it said gate carr ing a ! ! ! #a7 sai* to contain so8e 2.H 8i44ion +esos in P9i4i++ine C&rrencies ! That at the /olice -tation! #r! Abaca claimed that he >ust found said plastic bag at the -k bed -ection of the arrival flight /R2::=:2 April <2,3 where petitioners served as flight stewards of said flight /R2::B ! ! the petitioners sought 3a more detailed account of what this DME incident is all about3B but instead, the petitioners were a*8inistrati6e4y c9ar7e*, 3a hearing3 on which

3*i*not +&s9 t9ro&793 until almost two "2$ years after, i!e, 3on Fanuar 0:, (<<7 ! ! ! where a confrontation between #r! Abaca and petitioners herein was co8+&4sori4y arran7e* b the respondent$s *isci+4inary #oar*3 at which hearing, Abaca was made to i*entify petitioners as co:cons+iratorsB that despite the fact that the +roce*&re of identification adopted b respondent$s Disciplinar "oard was ano8a4o&s 3as there was no one e4se in t9e 4ine:&+ &which could not be called one' but petitioners ! ! ! Foseph Abaca still had difficult in identif ing petitioner /ineda as his co-conspirator, and as to petitioner Cabling, he was i8+4icate* and pointed b Abaca onl after respondent$s Att ! Cabatuando pressed the former to identif petitioner Cabling as coconspirator3B that with the hearing reset to Fanuar 07, (<<7, 3#r! Foseph Abaca finall gave e5c&4+atin7 state8ents to the board in that he c4eare* +etitioners from any +artici+ation or fro8 #ein7 t9e owners of t9e c&rrencies' and at which hearing #r! Foseph Abaca volunteered the information that the real owner of said mone was one who fre.uented his head.uarters in Dongkong to which information, the Disciplinar "oard Chairman, #r! 1smael Mhan,3 opined 3for the need for another hearing to go to the bottom of the incident3B that from said statement, it appeared 3that #r! Foseph Abaca was the courier, and had another mechanic in #anila who hid the currenc at the plane$s sk bed for Abaca to retrieve in Dongkong, which findings of how the mone was found was previousl confirmed b #r! Foseph Abaca himself when he was first investigated b the Dongkong authorities3B that >ust as petitioners 3thought that the were alread full cleared of the charges, as the no longer received an summons=notices on the intended 3additional hearings3 mandated b the Disciplinar "oard,3 the were surprised to receive 3on Aebruar 02, (<<7! ! ! a #emorandum dated Aebruar 00, (<<73 terminating their services for alleged violation of respondent$s Code of Discipline 3effective immediatel 3B that sometime ! ! ! first week of #arch, (<<7, petitioner /ineda received another #emorandum from respondent #r! Fuan /araiso, advising him of his termination effective Aebruar 2, (<<7, likewise for violation of respondent$s Code of DisciplineB ! ! ! 1n support of the issuance of the writ of temporar in>unction, the NLRC adapted the view that9 &(' private respondents cannot be validl dismissed on the strength of petitioner$s Code of Discipline which was declared illegal b this Court in the ease at PAL$ %nc! vs! 5L(*, &E!R! No! @7<@7', promulgated August (2, (<<2, for the reason that it was formulated b the petitioner without the participation of its emplo ees as re.uired in R!A! 8?(7, amending Article 0(( of the Labor CodeB &0' the whimsical, baseless and premature dismissals of private respondents which 3caused them grave and irreparable in>ur 3 is en>oinable as private respondents are left 3with no speed and ade.uate remed at law3 e%cept the issuance of a temporar mandator in>unctionB &2' the NLRC is empowered under Article 0(@ &e' of the Labor Code not onl to restrain an actual or threatened commission of an or all prohibited or unlawful acts but also to re.uire the

performance of a particular act in an labor dispute, which, if not restrained or performed forthwith, ma cause grave or irreparable damage to an part B and &6' the temporar power of the NLRC was recogniCed b this Court in the case of *hemo0 echnische &fg!$ %nc! 1mployees Union$ +FA$ et! al! vs! *hemo0 echnische &fg!$ %nc! HE!R! No! (:?:2(, Fanuar 07, (<<2I! *n #a 6, (<<7, petitioner moved for reconsideration ! arguing that the NLRC erred9 (! ! ! ! in granting a temporar in>unction order when it has no >urisdiction to issue an in>unction or restraining order since this ma be issued onl under Article 0(@ of the Labor Code if the case involves or arises from labor disputesB 0! ! ! ! in granting a temporar in>unction order when the termination of private respondents have long been carried outB 2! ! ! ! in ordering the reinstatement of private respondents on the basis of their mere allegations, in violation of /AL$s right to due process9 6! ! ! ! in arrogating unto itself management prerogative to discipline its emplo ees and divesting the labor arbiter of its original and e%clusive >urisdiction over illegal dismissal casesB 7! ! ! ! in suspending the effects of termination when such action is e%clusivel within the >urisdiction of the -ecretar of LaborB 8! ! ! ! in issuing the temporar in>unction in the absence of an irreparable or substantial in>ur to both private respondents! *n #a 2(, (<<7, the NLRC denied petitioner$s motion for reconsideration, ruling9 3The respondent &now petitioner', for one, cannot validl claim that we cannot e%ercise our in>unctive power under Article 0(@ &e' of the Labor Code on the prete%t that what we have here is not a labor dispute as long as it concedes that as defined b law, a3 &l' 3Labor Dispute3 includes an controvers or matter concerning terms or conditions of employment !3 1f securit of tenure, which has been breached b respondent and which, precisel , is sought to be protected b our temporar mandator in>unction &the core of controvers in this case' is not a 3term or condition of emplo ment3, what then isJ %%% %%% %%% Anent respondent$s second argument ! ! ! ! Article 0(@ &e' of the Labor Code ! ! ! empowered the Commission not onl to issue a prohibitor in>unction, but a mandator &3to re.uire the performance3' one as well! "esides, as earlier discussed, we alread e%ercised &on August 02, (<<(' this temporar mandator in>unctive power in the case of 3ChemoTechnische #fg!, 1nc! ,mplo ees ;nion-DAA et! al! vs! Chemo-Technische #fg!, 1nc!, et! al!3 & supra' and effectivel en>oined one &(' month old dismissals b Chemo-Technische and that our aforesaid mandator e%ercise of in>unctive power, when .uestioned through a petition for certiorari, was sustained b the Third Division of the -upreme court per its Resolution dated Fanuar 07, (<<2!

%%% %%% %%% Respondent$s fourth argument that petitioner$s remed for their dismissals is 3to file an illegal dismissal case against /AL which cases are within the original and e%clusive >urisdiction of the Labor Arbiter$ is ignorant! 1n re.uiring as a condition for the issuance of a 3temporar or permanent in>unction3 K 3&6' That complainant has no ade.uate remed at lawB3 Article 0(@ &e' of the Labor Code clearl envisioned ade-uacy, and not plain availability of a remed at law as an alternative bar to the issuance of an in>unction! An illegal dismissal suit &which takes, on its e%peditious side, three &2' ears before it can be disposed of' while available as a remed under Article 0(? &a' of the Labor Code, is certainl not an 3ade.uateB remed at law, ,rgo, it cannot as an alternative remed , bar our e%ercise of that in>unctive power given us b Article 0(@ &e' of the Code! %%% %%% %%% Thus, Article 0(@ &e', as earlier discussed Hwhich empowers this Commission 3to re.uire the performance of a particular act3 &such as our re.uiring respondent 3to cease and desist from enforcing3 its whimsical memoranda of dismissals and 3instead to reinstate petitioners to their respective position held prior to their sub>ect dismissals3' in 3an labor dispute which, if not ! ! ! performed forthwith, ma cause grave and irreparable damage to an part 3I stands as the sole 3ade.uate remed at law3 for petitioners here! Ainall , the respondent, in its si%th argument claims that even if its acts of dismissing petitioners 3ma be great, still the same is capable of compensation3, and that conse.uentl , 3in>unction need not be issued where ade.uate compensation at law could be obtained3! Actuall ,what respondent /AL argues here is that we need not interfere in its whimsical dismissals of petitioners as, after all, it can pa the latter its backwages! ! ! ! "ut >ust the same, we have to stress that Article 0?< does not speak alone of backwages as an obtainable relief for illegal dismissalB that reinstatement as well is the concern of said law, enforceable when necessar , through Article 0(@ &e' of the Labor Code &without need of an illegal dismissal suit under Article 0(? &a' of the Code' if such whimsical and capricious act of illegal dismissal will 3cause grave or irreparable in>ur to a part 3! ! ! ! ! ) Dence, the present recourse! E,N,RALL+, inA&nction is a preservative re8e*y for the +rotection of one$s s&#stanti6e ri79ts or interest ! 1t is not a ca&se of action in itself but merel a provisional reme(y, an a*A&nct to a 8ain s&it! 1t is resorted to onl when there is a pressing necessit to a6oi* inA&rio&s conseF&ences which cannot )e reme(ie( 6n(er any stan(ar( o7 compensation. The application of the in>unctive writ rests upon the

e%istence of an emergenc or of a special reason before the main case be regularl heard! The essentia4 con*itions for granting such temporar in>unctive relief are9 (' that the complaint alleges facts which appear to be s&fficient to constitute a +ro+er #asis for inA&nction and 0' that on the entire showing from the contending parties, the in>unction is reasona#4y necessary to protect the 4e7a4 ri79ts of the plaintiff pending the litigation! 1n>unction is also a special e.uitable relief granted onl in cases where there is no +4ain' a*eF&ate 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 of an or all prohibited or unlawful acts or to re.uire the performance of a particular act in an 4a#or *is+&te which, if not restrained or performed forthwith, ma cause 7ra6e or irre+ara#4e *a8a7e to an part or render ineffectual an decision in favor of such part Complementing the above-.uoted provision, -ec! (, Rule T1 of the New Rules 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 the Commission through its divisions pursuant to the provisions of paragraph &e' of Article 0(@ of the Labor Code, as amended, when it is established on the bases of the sworn allegations in the petition that the acts complained of, a' involving or arising from an labor dispute before the Commission, which, b' if not restrained or performed forthwith, ma cause grave or irreparable damage to an part or render ineffectual an decision in favor of such part ! The foregoing ancillary power ma be e%ercised b the Labor Arbiters9 *NL+ as an 1NC1D,NT 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! Arom the foregoing provisions of law, the power of the NLRC to issue an inA&ncti6e writ originates from 3any 4a#or *is+&te3 upon application b a part thereof, which application if not granted 3ma cause grave or irreparable damage to an part or render ineffectual an decision in favor of such part !3 The term 3LA"*R D1-/;T,3 is defined as 3an controvers or matter concerning terms and conditions of emplo ment or the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fi%ing, maintaining, changing, or arranging the terms and conditions of emplo ment regardless of whether

or not the disputants stand in the pro%imate relation of emplo ers and emplo ees!3 The term 3C*NTR*L,R-+O is likewise defined as 3a litigated .uestionB adversar proceeding in a court of lawB a civil action or suit, either at law or in e.uit B a >usticiable dispute!3 A 3>usticiable controvers 3 is 3one involving an active antagonistic assertion 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!3 Taking into account the foregoing definitions, it is an ,--,NT1AL R,P;1R,#,NT thatC t9ere 8&st first #e a LAB0R DI(P2TE #etween t9e conten*in7 +arties #efore t9e 4a#or ar#iter. 3hy (oes in@6nction not apply to the 7acts o7 this caseC 1n the present case, there is no 4a#or *is+&te between the petitioner and private respondents as there has et been no co8+4aint for i44e7a4 *is8issa4 fi4e* wit9 t9e 4a#or ar#iter b the private respondents against the petitioner! Aurthermore, an e%amination of private respondents$ petition for in>unction reveals that it has no basis since there is no s9owin7 of any &r7ency or irre+ara#4e inA&ry which the private respondents might suffer! 3hen is an in@6ry consi(ere( irrepara)leC An in>ur is considered irreparable if it is of such constant and fre.uent recurrence that no fair an* reasona#4e re*ress can #e 9a* t9erefor in a co&rt of 4aw' or where there is no stan*ar* b which their a8o&nt can #e 8eas&re* wit9 reasona#4e acc&racy , that is, it is not s&sce+ti#4e of 8at9e8atica4 co8+&tation. 1t is considered irreparable in>ur when it cannot be ade.uatel compensated in damages due to the nature of the in>ur itself or the nature of the right or propert in>ured or when there e%ists no certain pecuniar standard for the measurement of damages! 1n the case at bar, the alleged in>ur which private respondents stand to suffer b reason of their alleged illegal dismissal can be ade.uatel compensated 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 emplo ee who is un>ustl dismissed from emplo ment shall be entitled to reinstatement, without loss of seniorit rights and other privileges, and to the pa ment of full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to other benefits or their monetar e.uivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement!

II. GENERAL R2LE PR0HIBITI0N 2H)% 2-2 "I$% 2-J "e$ Calte; =ilipino ,ana&ers an( S6pervisors Association v. CIR, SCRA !5$ #"2% )) (CRA H1@ 3ERNAND0 C (e+te8#er 2J' -@.2 3ACT(C Calte% &claims'9 8ana7eria4 +ersonne4 could neither c4ai8 nor be the o#Aect of an &nfair 4a#or +ractice based on the case 1n re9 /etition for Certification ,lection at the Calte%, 1nc!, Cebu District, Alte% -upervisor and Aoremen5s ;nion9 the Court *ec4are* certain positions in respondent compan 5s Cebu District as 8ana7e8ent and e5c4&*e* them from the #ar7ainin7 &nit of s&+er6isors! I((2EC )*N an unfair labor practice 8ay #e co88itte* against managerial personnel who are members of petitioner Calte% Ailipino #anagers and -upervisors Association HELDC IE( Reasonin& The stand of the compan was not a w9i8sica4 an* f4i8sy one! 1t had valid legal basis! 1t 9onest4y #e4ie6e* that managers, being part of management should not #e inc4&*e* in a union of supervisors! The basic .uestion is whether the managerial personnel can or7ani;e! )hat respondent Compan failed to take into account is that the right to self-organiCation is not merel a statutor creation! 1t is fortified b our Constitution! All are free to e%ercise such right unless their purpose is contrar to law! Certainl it would be to attach unorthodo% to, not to sa an emasculation of, the concept of law if 8ana7ers as s&c9 were +rec4&*e* fro8 or7ani;in7! Daving done so and having been dul registered, as did occur in this case, their union is entit4e* to a44 t9e ri79ts under Republic Act No! @?7! Considering what is denominated an unfair labor practice under -ection 6 of such Act and the facts set forth in our decision, there can be onl one answer to the ob>ection raised that no unfair labor practice could be committed b respondent Compan insofar as managerial personnel is concerned! 1t is, as is .uite obvious, in the negative! DI(P0(ITIGEC /etition denied

III. EMCEPTI0N( DHEN IN/2NCTI0N ALL0DED 2H)% 2-J "e$% 2 ) "a$ 1ational ,ines an( Allie( 3or8ers Union v. Dera, 1!! SCRA 25< #: % 22. (CRA J2- N2IA(0N C No6e8#er - ' -@@! 3ACT(C Petitioner and respondent 33D:(>NCC are 4oca4 c9a+ters of 4a#or fe*erations dul registered with the Department of Labor and ,mplo ment &D0LE'! Petitioner is the e5c4&si6e #ar7ainin7 a7ent of all the rank and file workers of respondent NCC, a domestic corporation engaged in the 8eta4 in*&stry! *n -eptember 0?, (<<(, 2@ da s before the e5+iration of the Collective "argaining Agreement between petitioner and respondent PCC, respondent 33D:(>NCC through Re nito de /edro fi4e* with the D*L, 1ndustrial Relations Division, National Capital Region a petition for certification election! The petition was accompanied b a list of signatures of compan emplo ees, who signified their consent to a certification e4ection among the rank and file emplo ees of PCC! Petitioner herein 8o6e* to *is8iss the petition of respondent AA)--#PCC on the grounds that9 &a' the reF&ire* consent to the certification election of at least 07S of the rank and file emplo ees 9a* not #een 8etB &b' the petition was not 6erifie* as re.uired b lawB and &c' Reynito *e Pe*ro, who was also the +resi*ent of +etitioner , had no +ersona4ity to file the petition on behalf of AA)--#PCC! *n *ctober 2:, (<<(, respondent 33D:(>NCC, filed a secon* +etition for certification e4ection , this time signed and verified b De /edro! *n Fanuar 06, (<<0, the #ed-Arbiter granted the petition for certification election of respondent AA)--#PCC /etitioner appealed this decision to the -ecretar of Labor! *n Fune (?, (<<0, the -ecretar of Labor rendered a decision, den ing the appeal for lack of merit and affirming the order of the #ed-Arbiter! I((2EC )*N the petition for certification election was verified as re.uired b law HELDC IE( Reasonin& Airst, although Reynito *e Pe*ro was the dul elected president of petitioner, he had *isaffi4iate* himself therefrom and >oined respondent AA)--#PCC before the petition for certification election was filed on -eptember 0?, (<<(! The eventual *is8issa4

of De /edro from the compan is of no moment, considering that the petition for certification e4ection was fi4e* #efore 9is *is8issa4 on August 00, (<<0! -econd, verification of a pleading is a for8a4, not A&ris*ictiona4 re.uisite! ,ven if verification is lacking and the pleading is formall defective, the courts 8ay *is+ense wit9 t9e reF&ire8ent in the interest of >ustice and order of correction of the pleading accordingl ! Eenerall , technical and rigid rules of procedure are not binding in labor casesB and this rule is specificall applied in certification election proceedings, which are non-litigious but merel investigative and non-adversarial in character! Nevertheless, whatever formal defects e%isted in the first petition were cured and corrected in the second petition for certification election! Third, attached to the original petition for certification election was a list of (6( supporting signatures out of the 2:: emplo ees belonging to the appropriate bargaining unit to be represented b respondent AA)--#PCC! Respondent PCC sought to delete from the list some 28 signatures which are allegedl forged and falsified! /etitioner, likewise, submitted a >oint affidavit of (2 emplo ees, disclaiming the validit of the signatures therein! Eranting that 28 signatures were falsified and that (2 was disowned, this leaves <0 undisputed signatures which is definitel more than ?7 i!e!, 07S of the total number of compan emplo ees re.uired b law to support a petition for certification election! The disclaimer of (2 emplo ees b their respective signatures covers onl their own personal participation and cannot in an wa be e%tended to include the rest of those who did not .uestion the same! DI(P0(ITIGEC /etition dismissed

San ,i&6el Corporation v. 14RC, $! SCRA (CRA AKC2NA' /&ne -1' 211! NAT2RE /etition for certiorari and prohibition

1: #$!%

3ACT( -(>C and I4aw at B&,4o* n7 >an77a7awa "IB> ' e%ecuted a CBA wherein the agreed to s&#8it all disputes to 7rie6ance and arbitration proceedings, aside from no:stri,e' no:4oc,o&t a7ree8ent! -1"#, through its GP and subse.uentl through its +resi*ent &which was opposed b the L/', filed with NC#" a notice of stri,e against -#C for allegedl committing9 &(' i44e7a4 *is8issa4 of union members, &0' illegal transfer, &2' 6io4ation of CBA, &6' contractin7 o&t of >obs being performed 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 to Dismiss on the grounds that the notices raised non:stri,ea#4e iss&es and that the affected 6 corporations! -NC#"9 issues are non-strikeable, as onl -#C was impleaded when 6 different companies were involved! Notices of strike converted into preventive mediation! -while se+arate +re6enti6e 8e*iation conferences were ongoing, the ;nion through its L/ filed a notice of 9o4*in7 a stri,e 6ote! -#C opposed, invoking /AL v! Drilon &no strike could be legall declared during the pendenc of preventive mediation'! NC#" reiterated conversion of notice of strike into preventive mediation and grounds raised were onl intra:&nion conf4ict U nonstri,ea#4e &who between the 7 groups shall represent the workers for collective bargaining purposes$ union leadership4. -1"# /resident group filed 2n* notice of stri,e against -#C, NC#" found the additional grounds to be mere a8+4ifications of issues alleged in the (st notice of strike! *rdered conso4i*ation of the 0nd notice of strike with (st notice of strike! Eroup informed -#C of its plan to hold a strike! -L/ group notified the NC#" that their strike vote favored the holding of a strike! NC#" issued a letter reminding the group of the /AL v Drilon! 1"# went on stri,e! -trike paral Ced the operations of -#C, which caused millions of loses! --#C filed with NLRC a Petition for InA&nction wit9 Prayer for t9e Iss&ance of TR0, 3ree In7ress an* E7ress 0r*er and DeputiCation *rder, which was issued b NLRC, wit9o&t +reA&*ice to t9e &nion?s ri79t to +eacef&4 +ic,etin7 an* contin&o&s 9earin7s on the in>unction case! -#C also entered into a #emorandum of Agreement with ;nion, calling for lifting of picket lines and resumption of work in e%change of Ngood faith talksO between the management and the labor management committees! The #*A also stated that cases filed in relation to their dispute will continue and will not be affected in an manner whatsoever b the agreement! )ork was then resumed!

-NLRC reconsidered the issuance of TR*, and sought to dismiss the in>unction case! -#C opposed, submitted copies of fl ers wherein 1"# e%pressed their threat to revive the strike! NLRC issued decision den ing the petition for in>unction for lack of factual basis, there being no circumstance to constitute an actual or threatened commission of unlawful acts! #AR denied I((2E( )*N the strike held b 1"# was illegal &therefore, NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in den ing the petition for in>unction filed b -#C' HELD9+,a! /rocedural aspect of the strike -Aor a strike to be valid, it must be pursued within legal bounds! *ne of the procedural re.uisites that A082 of the LC and its 1RR prescribe is the filing of a valid notice of strike with the NC#"! 1mposed for the purpose of encouraging the voluntar settlement of disputes, this re.uirement has been held to be mandator , the lack of which shall render a strike illegal! -1n accordance with the 1mplementing Rules of the Labor Code, the con6ersion of the notice of stri,e to +re6enti6e 8e*iation has the effect of *is8issin7 t9e notices of stri,e filed b respondent! A case in point is /AL v! Drilon, where we declared a strike illegal for lack of a valid notice of strike, in view of the NC#"5s conversion of the notice therein into a preventive mediation case! During the pendenc of preventive mediation proceedings no strike could be legall declared! -therefore, since t9e notice of stri,e filed b the union was con6erte* into +re6enti6e 8e*iation proceedings, the &nion 9a* 4ost t9e notices of stri,e re.uired under A082! Howe6er, the union *efiant4y proceeded with the strike w9i4e 8e*iation was on7oin7! -uch disregard of the mediation proceedings was a blatant violation of the1mplementing Rules, which e%plicitl oblige the parties to bargain collectivel in good faith and prohibit them from impeding or disrupting the proceedings! b! on ruling of NLRC that there was lack of factual basis &no circumstance to constitute an actual or threatened commission of unlawful acts' -at the time the in>unction was being sought, there e%isted a threat to revive the unlawful strike as evidenced b the fl ers then being circulated b the 1"#, which were not denied b the respondent union! #oreover, a declaration of strike without first having filed the re.uired notice is a prohibited activit &A086&a'', which ma be prevented through an in>unction in accordance with A076! c! on 1"#5s failure to observe the C"A provisions on grievance and arbitration - -trikes held in violation of the terms contained in a collective bargaining agreement are illegal especiall when the provide for conclusive ar#itration c4a&ses! These agreements must #e strict4y a*9ere* to and respected if their ends have to be achieved!

-N)e cannot sanction the respondent-union5s braCen disregard of legal re.uirements imposed purposel to carr out the state polic of promoting voluntar modes of settling disputes! The state5s commitment to enforce mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace is affirmed b no less than our Constitution! Trade unionism and strikes are legitimate weapons of labor granted b our statutes! "ut misuse of these instruments can be the sub>ect of >udicial intervention to forestall grave in>ur to a business enterprise!O +isposition. )D,R,A*R,, the instant petition is hereb ERANT,D! The decision and resolution of the NLRC in 1n>unction Case No! ::68@-<6 are R,L,R-,D and -,T A-1D,! /etitioner and private respondent are hereb directed to submit the issues raised in the dismissed notices of strike to grievance procedure and proceed with arbitration proceedings as prescribed in their C"A, if necessar ! No pronouncement as to costs! -* *RD,R,D!

Ila? at B68lo( n& ,an&&a&a?a v. 'irector o7 B4R, <1 SCRA #1<"<% -@J (CRA HJ NARGA(A% /&ne 2.' -@@-

:2

3ACT( -The controvers at bar had its origin in the 3 wa7e *istortions3 affecting the emplo ees of respondent -an #iguel Corporation allegedl caused b Republic Act No! 8?0?, otherwise known as the )age RationaliCation Act! -;pon the effectivit of the Act on Fune 7, (<@<, the union known as 31law at "uklod Ng #anggagawa &1"#'3 K said to represent 6,7:: emplo ees of (an >i7&e4 Cor+oration, more or less, 3working at the 6ario&s +4ants, offices, and warehouses located at the National Capital Region3 - presented to the compan a 3*e8an*3 for correction of the 3si7nificant *istortion in ! ! ! &the workers$' wages!3 -;nion claims that demand was i7nore* - The ;nion$s position &set out in the petition subse.uentl filed in this Court, infra' was that the workers$ ref&sa4 3to work be ond eight &@' hours ever da as a legitimate means of co8+e44in7 (>C to correct .the (istortion in their ?a&es brought about b the i8+4e8entation of the said laws &R!A! 886: and R!A! 8?0?' to new4y:9ire* e8+4oyees!3 There ensued thereb a change in the work schedule which had been observed b dail -paid workers at the /olo /lant for the past five &7' ears, i!e!, 3ten &(:' hours for the first shift and ten &(:' to fourteen &(6' hours for the second shift, from #onda s to Arida s ! ! !B &and on' -aturda s, ! ! ! eight &@' hours for both shifts3 K a work schedule which, -#C sa s, the workers had 3welcomed, and encouraged3 because the a&to8atic o6erti8e #&i4t into t9e sc9e*&4e 3gave them a stead source of e%tra-income,3 and pursuant to which it &-#C' 3planned its production targets and budgets! -This a#an*on8ent of t9e 4on7:stan*in7 sc9e*&4e of wor, and the re6ersion to the eight-hour shift apparentl caused s&#stantia4 4osses to (>C. --#C filed with the Arbitration "ranch of the National Labor Relations Commission a complaint against the ;nion and its members Bto *ec4are t9e stri,e or s4ow*own i44e7a4 3 and to terminate the emplo ment of the union officers and shop stewards! -it is -#C$s submittal that the coor*inate* re*&ction b the ;nion$s members of t9e wor, ti8e theretofore wi44in74y and consistent4y observed b them, thereb ca&sin7 financia4 4osses to the emplo er in order to co8+e4 it to ield to the *e8an* for correction of Bwa7e *istortions'B is an illegal and 3unprotected3 activit ! 1t is, -#C argues, contrar to the law and to the collective bargaining agreement between it and the ;nion! I((2E )*N the strike is illegal

HELD +,-! Among the rights guaranteed to emplo ees b the Labor Code is that of engaging in concerted activities in order to attain their legitimate ob>ectives! Article 082 of the Labor Code, as amended, declares that in line with 3the polic of the -tate to encourage free trade unionism and free collective bargaining, ! ! ! &w'orkers shall have the right to engage in concerted activities for purposes of collective bargaining or for their mutual benefit and protection!3 A similar right to engage in concerted activities for mutual benefit and protection is tacitl and traditionall recogniCed in respect of emplo ers! The more common of these concerted activities as far as emplo ees are concerned are9 strikes K the temporar stoppage of work as a result of an industrial or labor disputeB picketing K the marching to and fro at the emplo er$s premises, usuall accompanied b the displa of placards and other signs making known the facts involved in a labor disputeB and bo cotts K the concerted refusal to patroniCe an emplo er$s goods or services and to persuade others to a like refusal! *n the other hand, the counterpart activit that management ma licitl undertake is the lockout K the temporar refusal to furnish work on account of a labor dispute! 1n this connection, the same Article 082 provides that the 3right of legitimate labor organiCations to strike and picket and of emplo er to lockout, consistent with the national interest, shall continue to be recogniCed and respected!3 The legalit of these activities is usuall dependent on the legalit of the purposes sought to be attained and the means emplo ed therefor &*N T,-T *A L,EAL1T+'! 1t goes without sa ing that these Aoint or coor*inate* acti6ities ma be for#i**en or restricte* #y 4aw or contract! 1n the particular instance of 3distortions of the wage structure within an establishment3 resulting from 3the application of an prescribed wa7e increase b virtue of a law or wage order,3 -ection 2 of Republic Act No! 8?0? prescribes a specific, detailed and comprehensive +roce*&re for t9e correction thereof, thereb implicitl e5c4&*in7 strikes or lockouts or other concerted activities as 8o*es of sett4e8ent of t9e iss&e. The legislative intent that solution of the problem of wage distortions shall be sought b voluntar negotiation or arbitration, and not b strikes, lockouts, or other concerted activities of the emplo ees or management, is made clear in the rules implementing RA 8?0? issued b the -ecretar of Labor and ,mplo ment pursuant to the authorit granted b -ection (2 of the Act! -ection (8, Chapter 1 of these implementing rules, after reiterating the polic that wage distortions be first settled voluntaril b the parties and eventuall b compulsor arbitration, declares that, 3An issue involving wage distortion shall not be a ground for a strike=lockout!3 -#oreover, the co44ecti6e #ar7ainin7 a7ree8ent between the -#C and the ;nion, relevant provisions of which are .uoted b the former without the latter s demurring to the accurac of the .uotation, also prescribes a similar esc9ewa4 of stri,es or other similar or related concerted activities as a mode of resolving disputes or controversies, generall , said

agreement clearl stating that settlement of 3all disputes, disagreements or controversies of an kind3 should be achieved b the stipulated grievance procedure and ultimatel b arbitration! Disposition /,T1T1*N D,N1,D 'elta Dent6res Reso6rce, Inc. v. Ca)ato, !2" SCRA 521 #$$% !2" SCRA 521 N2I(2>BING% >ARCH @' 2111 NAT2RE -pecial civil action for certiorari seeks to annul the *rder Fudge Cabato of the RTC, dismissing petitioner$s amended third-part complaint, as well as the *rder den ing motion for reconsideration! 3ACT( A Decision was rendered b LA declaring the Green >o&ntain 3ar8, Ro#erto 0n7+in and A48&s A4a#e guilt of I44e7a4 Dis8issa4 and ;nfair La#or Practice and ordering them to pa the complainants, in solidum plus attorne $s fees in the amount of P-1'111.11! Almus Alabe is also ordered to answer in e5e8+4ary *a8a7es in the amount of /7,:::!:: each to all the complainants! LA issued a writ of e5ec&tion directing NLRC Deput -heriff Adam Lentura to e%ecute the >udgment! -heriff Lentura then proceeded to enforce the writ b 7arnis9in7 certain +ersona4 +ro+erties of respondents! Ainding that said >udgment debtors do not have sufficient personal properties to satisf the monetar award, -heriff Lentura proceeded to 4e6y upon a rea4 +ro+erty registered in the name of Roberto *ngpin, one of the respondents in the labor case! "efore the scheduled auction sale, herein +etitioner filed before the Commission a t9ir*:+arty c4ai8 asserting ownership o6er t9e +ro+erty 4e6ie* upon and sub>ect of the -heriff5s notice of sale! Labor Arbiter Rivera thus issued an order directing the s&s+ension of t9e a&ction sa4e until the merits of petitioner$s claim has been resolved! Dowever, +etitioner filed with the RTC a co8+4aint for inA&nction and damages, with a pra er for the issuance of a te8+orary restrainin7 or*er against -heriff Lentura! Fudge Cabato issued a temporar restraining order, en>oining respondents in the civil case before him to hold in abe ance an action relative to the enforcement of the decision in the labor case! Aurther, petitioner filed with the Commission a manifestation .uestioning the latter$s authorit to hear the case, the matter being within the >urisdiction of the regular courts! The manifestation, however, was dismissed b Labor Arbiter Rivera! I((2E )*N the trial court ma take cogniCance of the complaint filed b petitioner and conse.uentl provide the in>unctive relief sought!

HELD N*! "asic as a hornbook principle, A&ris*iction o6er t9e s&#Aect 8atter of a case is conferre* #y 4aw an* *eter8ine* #y t9e a44e7ations in t9e co8+4aint which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the petitioner$s cause of action! *stensibl the complaint before the trial court was for the reco6ery of +ossession and inA&nction, but in essence it was an action c9a44en7in7 t9e 4e7a4ity or +ro+riety of t9e 4e6y 6is:a:6is t9e a4ias writ of e5ec&tion , including the acts performed b the La#or Ar#iter and the De+&ty (9eriff implementing the writ! The complaint was in effect a 8otion to F&as9 the writ of e5ec&tion of a *ecision rendered on a case properl within the A&ris*iction of t9e La#or Ar#iter , to wit9 I44e7a4 Dis8issa4 and 2nfair La#or Practice! Considering the factual setting, it is then logical to conclude that the sub>ect matter of the third part claim is but an incident of the labor case, a matter be ond the >urisdiction of regional trial courts! /recedent abound confirming the rule that said courts have no >urisdiction to act on 4a#or cases or various incidents arising therefrom, including the e5ec&tion of *ecisions' awar*s or or*ers ! Furisdiction to tr and ad>udicate such cases pertains e%clusivel to the proper labor official concerned under the Department of Labor and ,mplo ment! To hold otherwise is to sanction s+4it A&ris*iction which is o#no5io&s to the orderl administration of >ustice! The broad powers granted to the Labor Arbiter and to the National Labor Relations Commission b Articles 0(?, 0(@ and 006 of the Labor Code can onl be interpreted as vesting in them >urisdiction over incidents arising from, in connection with or relating to labor disputes, as the controvers under consideration, to the e%clusion of the regular courts! Daving established that >urisdiction over the case rests with the Commission, we find no grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent Fudge Cabato in den ing petitioner$s motion for the issuance of an in>unction against the e%ecution of the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission!

Rava&o v. Eastern ,arine, 4t(.,

5! SCRA !:1 #$5%

=acts8 /etitioner is a seafarer who was hired on a contract&a4 #asis! -hortl after t9e ter8ination of his latest contract, he was granted a 6acation 4ea6e! During that time, he was 9it #y a stray #&44et on his left 4e7 which caused +er8anent inA&ry! Eastern >arine refused to re0hire him! /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 inA&nction! The petitioner asserts that the CA 6io4ate* Artic4e 2H) of t9e La#or Co*e w9en it iss&e* a te8+orary restrainin7 or*er , and thereafter a writ of preliminar in>unction, to *erai4 the enforce8ent of the fina4 an* e5ec&tory A&*78ent of the Labor Arbiter as affirmed b the NLRC! *n the other hand, the respondents contend that the issue has become academic since the CA had alread decided the case on its merits! 0el(8 The petitioner5s reliance on Article 07 Hof the Labor Code is misplaced! The law +roscri#es the issuance of in>unctive relief only in those 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 of emplo ment 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 attorne 5s fees! #oreover, Article 076 of the Labor Code specificall provides that the NLRC ma grant in>unctive relief under Article 0(@ thereof! "esides, the anti:inA&nction +o4icy of the Labor Code, basicall , is free*o8 at t9e wor,+4ace! 1t is more appropriate in the promotion of the primac of free collective bargaining and negotiations, including voluntar arbitration, mediation and conciliation, as 8o*es of sett4in7 4a#or an* in*&stria4 *is+&tes. Eenerall , an inA&nction is a +reser6ati6e re8e*y for the protection of a +erson?s s&#stanti6e ri79ts or interests! 1t is not a ca&se of action in itself but a 8ere +ro6isiona4 re8e*y, an appendage to the main suit! /ressing necessit re.uires that it should be resorted to onl to avoid in>urious conse.uences which cannot be remedied under an measure of consideration! The a++4ication of an inA&ncti6e writ rests upon the +resence of an e5i7ency or of an e5ce+tiona4 reason before the main case can be regularl heard! The in(ispensa)le con(itions for granting such temporar in>unctive relief are9 &a' that the complaint alleges facts which appear to be satisfactor to establish a +ro+er #asis for in>unction, and

&b' that on the entire showing from the contending parties, the in>unction is reasona#4y necessary to protect the 4e7a4 ri79ts of the plaintiff pending the litigation! 1t bears stressing that in the present case, the respondents5 petition contains facts s&fficient to warrant the issuance of an in>unction under Article 0(@, paragraph &e' of the Labor Code of the /hilippines! Aurther, respondents had alread posted a s&rety #on* more than ade.uate to cover the >udgment award!

IG. I((2ING AGENCI A. Nationa4 La#or Re4ations Co88ission 2-J "e$ an* Ro4e of La#or Ar#iter 1estle Philippines, Inc. v. 14RC, 1<5 SCRA ! $ #<1% -@H (CRA !)1 GRIO0:AN2IN0% >arc9 -J' -@@NAT2RE /etition for certiorari 3ACT( - The private respondents, who were e8+4oye* #y Nest4P either as sa4es re+resentati6es or 8e*ica4 re+resentati6es, availed of the petitioner$s car 4oan +o4icy! ;nder that polic , the compan a*6ances the +&rc9ase +rice of a car to be paid back b the emplo ee through 8ont94y *e*&ctions fro8 9is sa4ary, the compan retaining the ownership of the motor vehicle until it shall have been full paid for! - After having participated in an i44e7a4 stri,e, the private respondents were *is8isse* fro8 ser6ice! NestlV directed the private respondents to eit9er sett4e t9e re8ainin7 #a4ance of t9e cost of t9eir res+ecti6e cars, or ret&rn them to the compan for proper disposition! - /rivate respondents fai4e* an* ref&se* to a6ai4 of eit9er o+tion , so the compan filed in the Regional Trial Court of #akati a ci6i4 s&it to reco6er +ossession of the cars! The private respondents sought a te8+orary restrainin7 or*er in the NLRC to sto+ t9e co8+any fro8 cance44in7 t9eir car 4oans and collecting their monthl amortiCations! The NLRC, en banc, granted their petition for in>unction! - The compan filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied for tardiness! Dence, this petition for certiorari alleging that the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of >urisdiction when it issued a labor in>unction without legal basis and in the absence of an labor dispute related to the same! I((2E )*N there is a labor dispute between the petitioner and the private respondents HELD N* Ratio /aragraph &(' of Article 0(0 of the Labor Code defines a labor dispute as follows9 3&(' $Labor dispute$ includes an controvers or matters concerning terms or conditions of emplo ment or the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fi%ing, maintaining, changing or arranging the terms and conditions of emplo ment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in the pro%imate relation of emplo er and emplo ee!3 NestlV5s demand for pa ment of the private respondents$ amortiCations on their car loans, or, in the alternative, the return of the cars to the compan , is not a 4a#or' #&t a ci6i4' *is+&te ! 1t involves debtor-creditor relations, rather than emplo ee-emplo er relations!

Reasonin& )hether or not the private respondents remain as emplo ees of the petitioner, there is no escape from their obligation to pa their outstanding accountabilities to the petitionerB and if the cannot afford it, to return the cars assigned to them! The options given to the private respondents are civil in nature arising from contractual obligations! There is no labor aspect involved in the enforcement of those obligations! The NLRC gravel abused its discretion and e%ceeded its >urisdiction b issuing the writ of in>unction to stop the compan from enforcing the civil obligation of the private respondents under the car loan agreements and from protecting its interest in the cars which, b the terms of those agreements, belong to it &the compan ' until their purchase price shall have been full paid b the emplo ee! The terms of the car loan agreements are not in issue in the labor case! The rights and obligations of the parties under those contracts ma be enforced b a separate civil action in the regular courts, not in the NLRC! 'isposition /etition is granted!

B. InA&nction an* >e*:Ar#iter 'inio v. 4a&6esma, 2"! SCRA 1$< #<"% 3ACT( Aollowing the e5+iration of the ter8s of office of the inc&8#ent officers of the PCIBan, E8+4oyees 2nion "PCIBE2$ and in accordance with the latter$s constitution G b -laws, the e4ection of a new set of &nion officers was scheduled on 2( Fanuar (<<0! Two &nion +arties emerged to vie for the various officer positions -- the /art for /rogress and ;nit &PP2' headed b ,lmer Nana*ie7o and the /art for Reform &P3R' whose standard bearer was petitioner Eamaliel Dinio! To supervise the upcoming elections, a Co88ittee on E4ection was formall formed b the /C1",; "oard of Directors through a "oard Resolution adopted during the special meeting held on 0@ November (<<(! The members of the said committee were9 The aforecited resolution was signed b all the members of the board e%cept for Eamaliel Dinio, ,dgar Linson and Dominador Domingo! Thereafter on 8 Fanuar (<<0, the inc&8#ent PCIBE2 Presi*ent , ,lmer Nanadiego, penned a 4etter a**resse* to a44 &nion 8e8#ers informing them of the sc9e*&4e* &nion e4ections and the for8ation of the Co88ittee on E4ection &/C1",;-Comelec'!H0I *n @ Fanuar (<<0, the /C1",;-Comelec Chairman, Danilo /icadiCo, sent a letter to the management of /C1"ank informing them of the &+co8in7 e4ections! 1n the same letter the PCIBE2:Co8e4ec re.uested the bank for assistance in the form of a6ai4a#4e s+ace and 6ario&s e4ection +ara+9erna4ia.Q2I /C1",;-Comelec Chairman /icadiCo, likewise, wrote the Regional Director of the Department of Labor and ,mplo ment K NCR &D*L,' Att ! "ernardino Fulve re.uesting the +resence of D0LE re+resentati6es on e4ection *ay for the purpose of ensuring clean and honest elections!H6I *n the same date, the /C1",;-Comelec issued the E4ection G&i*e4ines9 Fanuar @, (<<0 ,L,CT1*N E;1D,L1N,(! The ;nion elections will be held on Fanuar 2(, (<<0, from < a!m! to 7 p!m! 1n the head office, the elections will be conducted at the ,mplo ees Canteen, 8th AloorB in the branches, the same will be held in an acceptable place to be agreed upon between the branch manager and the ;nion representatives! The elections will be held simultaneousl in the head office and in all branches nation-wide!

0! Representatives from the Department of Labor and ,mplo ment will be invited to assist in the conduct of the elections up to the counting of the ballots cast! /roclamation of the winners will be made b the Chairman, Committee on ,lections as soon as the canvass is terminated! 2! The election canvass will be conducted at the ,mplo ees Canteen, 8th Aloor in the head office and in the branches nation-wide as soon as the ballot bo%es are closed at 7 p!m!, Fanuar 2(, (<<0! Results in the branches will be forwarded to the;nion Comelec, c=o ;nion *ffice, in the proper form&s' to be distributed for the purpose! Canvassing will be made at the Dead *ffice! 6! The positions open to be contested are9 (! /resident 0! ,%ecutive Lice-/resident 2! Lice-/resident - ,%ternal 6! Lice /resident - 1nternal 7! Lice /resident - ,ducation and Research 8! -ecretar ?! Treasurer @! Auditor <! /ress Relation *fficer 1 (:! /ress Relation *fficer 11 ((! Asst! -ecretar (0! Asst! Treasurer (2! Asst! Auditor (6! -i% #embers of the "oard of Directors 7! All ;nion members as of December 2(, (<<(, as indicated in the management print-out will be eligible to run for an position above! Likewise, all these ;nion members will be the registered voters for purposes of the elections! 8! Deadline for the submission of Certificate&s' of Candidac , either as individual candidates or as candidates of a part will be Fanuar (?, (<<0, at 692: p!m! to the ;nion *ffice or to an member of the ;nion Comelec! Candidates from the branches can send their Certificate&s' of Candidac b mail or b wire! The deadline will be reckoned from the date stamped for deliver ! A Candidac , whether individual or b part , must be confirmed b the signature of the Candidate! ?! All other procedures generall accepted in the practice of elections will be followed to ensure democratic processes! /R*#;LEAT,D this @th da of Fanuar , (<<0, #akati, #etro #anila!H7I Thereafter, the two contestin7 +arties /AR and //; anno&nce* the names of their respective can*i*ates, filed the corresponding certificates of candidac and the e4ection ca8+ai7n co88ence*! Dowever, two *ays #efore e4ection *ay or on 0< Fanuar (<<0, P3R filed with the BLR a +etition for inA&nction with pra er for issuance of

te8+orary restrainin7 or*er against the /C1",;-Comelec &docketed as NCR-*D-#-<0-:(-((<'! The part alleged that the /C1",;-Comelec was not 6a4i*4y constit&te*B that said committee fai4e* to iss&e the necessar election 7&i*e4inesB that officia4 #a44ots were dispatched to the provincial branches wit9o&t t9e ,now4e*7e of P3R B and that there is reasonable ground to believe that the elections will be ri77e* in favor of the other part ! /AR, thus, pra ed that the /C1",;-Comelec be en>oined from supervising and administering the union electionsB that the "LR create a special team to supervise the electionsB and that the elections be moved to another date!H8I *n 2: Fanuar (<<0, #ed-Arbiter /aterno D! Adap granted the temporar restraining order pra ed for! The order read, thus9 Considering the &r7ency an* serio&sness of the issues raised b petitioners in the above-entitled case, and considering further the InA&nction with /ra er of 1ssuance of Temporar Restraining *rder in their petition cop of which is hereto attachedB and considering furthermore, the ti8e e4e8ent involved in this case, so as not to render petitioners$ petition moot and academic and in order to protect the rights of the parties=litigants, ou respondents, &sic' The Committee on ,lection herein Represented b Danilo /icadiCo, or an of our authoriCed representatives acting for and in our behalf are hereb directed to cease and desist from holding general election of /C1" ,mplo ees ;nion *fficers on Fanuar 2(, (<<0, until further ordered b this *ffice! -* *RD,R,D!H?I 0n4y t9e e4ections in >etro >ani4a' 9owe6er' was s&s+en*e* ! 1n the provincial branches, the union elections proceeded as scheduled! -ubse.uentl , the /C1",;-Comelec responded b filing an ;rgent #otion to Dissolve Restraining *rder and to Den /etition for 1ssuance of )rit of 1n>unction dated 0 Aebruar (<<0!H@I *n 0( Aebruar (<<0, the PCIBE2:Co8e4ec issued a circ&4ar re: sc9e*&4in7 t9e &nion e4ections in #etro #anila to 0@ Aebruar (<<0H<I on grounds that the 21:*ay 4ife s+an of t9e te8+orary restrainin7 or*er 9a* 4a+se*! After the elections in #anila were finall held and the o6er:a44 res&4ts canvassed, the names of the elected union officers were declared, thus9 /resident ,L#,R NANAD1,E* ,%ec! Lice /res! L*R,NQ* CALL,F* L/-1nternal A1L1ARANC* -1-*N L/-,%ternal N,-T*R N,R",L/-,duc! G Research RA#*NA "AN-;AN -ecretar N,R1--A ,-/1R1T; -ANT* Asst! -ec! D*L*R,- /,LA+* Treasurer ,L1QA",TD D*LL,R* Asst! Treasurer F;AN1TA -1#/A* Auditor F*-,/D1N, *NE Asst! Auditor ",NFA#1N P;1A#"A*

/R*-( L;1- "AT* /R*-0 -;-AN CA-TR* Directors R,#;,L CA/1-TRAN* E,RARD* *R1AN* D,-1D,R1* #AET1"A+ T,*D*R* A1-1C* CR1- A"1-TAD* CARL DARNH(:I *n 2 #arch (<<0, /AR filed another petition, docketed as Case No! NCR:D-#-<0:2-:(@, for the Iss&ance of Drit of InA&nction wit9 >otion to Cite t9e >e8#ers of Co8e4ec:PCIBE2 in Conte8+t an* N&44ification of t9e I44e7a44y Con*&cte* 2nion E4ection against the nationa4 officers of the PCIBan, E8+4oyees 2nion, the members of the Comelec-/C1",; and the /C1"ank! 1t argued in the main that the elections held were in6a4i*! The +ro6incia4 e4ections +&s9e* t9ro&79 *es+ite t9e te8+orary restrainin7 or*er and the #anila elections were held even though the temporar restraining order has not been lifted b the #ed-Arbiter!H((I /AR, thus, pra ed for the following9 )D,R,A*R,, premises considered, it is respectfull pra ed that, after due hearing, an *rder be promulgated9 a' nullif ing the results of the election and proclamation of the alleged winning candidatesB b' en>oining the National *fficers of /C1"ank ,mplo ees ;nion from governing the union and administering its union fundsB c' ordering respondent /hilippine Commercial 1nternational "ank from not releasing its assessed union funds to respondent National *fficersB d' citing the respondents members of C*#,L,C in contempt of this Donorable *ffice! *ther reliefs as are >ust and e.uitable under the premises are, likewise, pra ed for!H(0I *n 7 #arch (<<0, /C1",;-Comelec filed a #otion to Dismiss the aforestated petition on grounds that the same has become moot and academic due to the lapse of the 0:-da period of effectivit of the temporar restraining order!H(2I Case No! NCR-*D-#-<0:2-:(@ was consolidated with the earlier case, Case No! NCR-*D-#-<0:(-((<, and on 0( April (<<0, #ed-Arbiter Adap issued an order, the dispositive portion of which reads thus9 )D,R,A*R,, premises considered, >udgment is hereb rendered declaring that the elections of /C1",; *fficers conducted on Fanuar 2(, (<<0 in /C1"ank provincial branches and on Aebruar 0@, (<<0 in #etro #anila /C1"ank branches b respondent C*#,L,C null and voidB and that the proclamation of the winners in said elections issued b the same C*#,L,C on Aebruar 0<, (<<0 is likewise null and void! Accordingl , it is hereb or*ere* that a new e4ection nationwi*e of nationa4 officers of PCIBE2 be conducted immediatel under the strict

supervision and control of this *ffice! The Representation *fficer is hereb directed to implement this *rder without further dela ! Aurther, pending the final resolution of these cases, all individuals who have been proclaimed winners b respondent C*#,L,C pursuant to its proclamation dated Aebruar 0<, (<<0 are hereb ordered to cease and desist from acting as union officersB and that respondent /C1"ank is likewise ordered to cease and desist from dealing with an union officers=individual or persons claiming to be /C1",; officers, pending proclamation of winners in the new election of /C1",; officers to be conducted pursuant to this *rder! Aurthermore, all incidental motions filed b respondent C*#,L,C in connection with these two &0' petitions are hereb denied for lack of merit! -* *RD,R,D!H(6I The >e*:Ar#iter made the following rulings9 (! That the sub>ect matter of the consolidated petitions pertains to an intra:&nion conf4ict and therefore >urisdiction properl belongs to the #ed-ArbitersB 0! That the temporar restraining order was granted to avert irreparable in>ur to petitioner due to the /C1",;-Comelec$s failure to issue the necessar election guidelinesB 2! That labor cases constitute an e%ception to the rule that a temporar restraining order has an effectivit period of onl 0: da sB and 6! That the /C1",;-Comelec acted in bad faith and partialit when it conducted the union elections despite the issuance of the temporar restraining order!H(7I *n ? #a (<<0, /C1",;-Comelec filed a #otion for Reconsideration=Appeal and on (( August (<<0, the ;ndersecretar of the D*L, "ienvenido ,! Laguesma rendered the assailed decision, the dispositive portion of which states9 )D,R,A*R,, the appeals are hereb granted and the *rder appealed from is hereb set aside and vacated! 1n lieu thereof, a new *rder is issued dismissing these consolidated cases for lack of merit! -* *RD,R,D!H(8I ;ndersecretar Laguesma declared that the temporar restraining order issued b the #ed-Arbiter had no force and effect! /etitioner failed to hurdle the test of 3grave or irreparable damage!3 1n the same decision, he upheld the validit of the union elections conducted b the /C1",;Comelec! /etitioners immediatel filed a motion for reconsideration of the aforecited decision on (< August (<<0! The same, however, was dismissed for lack of merit b ;ndersecretar Laguesma in its decision dated (( December (<<0!H(?I /etitioners, thus, sought recourse from this Court on the following grounds9 (! The issuance of the Temporar Restraining *rder made b the Don! #ed-Arbiter was valid!

0! The general election conducted in the provincial branches of /C1",; was void from the ver beginning! 2! The general elections conducted in #etro #anila branches of the /C1",; are, likewise, illegal!H(@I The petition lacks merit and must perforce be denied! I(2(E The issues herein, for purposes of clarit , ma be separated into two9 the 6a4i*ity of t9e iss&ance of t9e te8+orary restrainin7 or*er and the 4e7a4ity of t9e &nion e4ections of /C1",;! RATI0 *n the first issue, petitioners contend that ;ndersecretar Laguesma seriousl erred in ruling on the validit of the issuance of the sub>ect temporar restraining order! -aid issue was neither brought up nor discussed b private respondents in their appeal and, therefore, should be considered 3permanentl settled for all intents and purposes!3H(<I To support their argument, petitioners rel upon the sound procedural precept that unassigned errors or .uestions not specificall raised ma not be considered on appeal! 1n addition, petitioners argue that the /C1",;Comelec was estopped from assailing the validit of the temporar restraining order due to its failure to immediatel file an opposition thereto! 1nstead of protesting, the /C1",;-Comelec complied, without hesitation, with the said temporar restraining order and postponed the union elections in the #anila branches! /etitioners$ arguments fail to convince! As with most procedural rules, the ma%im cited b petitioners is sub>ect to e%ceptions! 1n 9arrido v. *ourt of Appeals,H0:I we declared that9 %%% An unassigned error closel related to an error properl assigned, or upon which the determination of the .uestion properl assigned is dependent, ma be considered b the appellate court! -imilarl in :orean Airlines *o.$ Ltd. v. *ourt of Appeals ,H0(I we held9 %%% HTIhe Court is clothed with ample authorit to review matters, even if the are not assigned as errors in their appeal, if it finds that their consideration is necessar in arriving at a >ust decision of the case! The case at bar falls s.uarel under the afore.uoted e%ceptions! 1n the performance of his duties, the public respondent s9o&4* not #e s9ac,4e* #y strin7ent r&4es, if to do so would result in manifest in>ustice! Thus, he cannot, and correctl did not, turn a blind e e to the ar#itrary an* 9a+9a;ar* 8anner b which the #ed-Arbiter issued the sub>ect temporar restraining order, even though this issue was not e%plicitl raised b private respondents!

There is no .uestion that the iss&ance of a te8+orary restrainin7 or*er is addressed to the so&n* *iscretion of t9e >e*:Ar#iter! Dowever, 3this discretion should be e%ercised based upon the grounds and in the manner provided b law!3 1n the case of labor in>unctions or te8+orary restrainin7 or*ers , one ma issue on4y in instances where the complainant or applicant will s&ffer 7ra6e or irre+ara#4e *a8a7es as provided in -ec! 7, Rule TL1, "ook L of the *mnibus Rules 1mplementing the Labor Code9 -ec 7! 1n>unctions! K No temporar in>unctions or restraining order in an case involving or growing out of a labor dispute shall be issued b an court or other entit ! *n the other hand, the *ffice of the /resident, the -ecretar of Labor, the Commission, the Labor Arbiter or med-arbiter ma en>oin an or all acts involving or arising from an case pending before an of said offices or officials which if not restrained forthwith ma cause grave or irreparable damage to an of the parties to the case or seriousl affect social or economic stabilit ! 1n the instant controvers , the first petition for in>unction and temporar restraining order filed b petitioners on 0< Fanuar (<<0 was manifestl insufficient to show grave or irreparable in>ur and it puCCles us to no end how the #ed-Arbiter could have issued the temporar restraining order on such flims basis! Aor instance, petitioners alleged that the /C1",;Comelec was illegall constituted, et, the unhesitatingl participated in the pre-election process! The announced their candidates and activel campaigned for them! 1n the petition for in>unction itself, petitioners even stated that the filed their certificates of candidac in compliance with the directives of the /C1",;-Comelec! Dow can petitioners obe the orders of the /C1",;-Comelec and at the same time re>ect its authorit J This should have put the #ed-Arbiter on guard! )hile it is true that the #ed-Arbiter has the authorit to issue a writ of preliminar in>unction, or a temporar restraining order against an act arising from an case pending before him, the e%ercise thereof shall alwa s be sub>ect to the test of reasona#4eness! The #ed-Arbiter should ascertain that the act complained of, if not restrained forthwith, ma cause grave or irreparable damage to an of the parties to the case! Da8a7e is consi*ere* Birrepara)leBC a' if it is of such constant an* freF&ent rec&rrence that no fair or reasona#4e re*ress can be had therefor in a court of law &Allendorf vs! Abalanson, 2@ /hil! 7@7', or b' where there is no stan*ar* b which their amount can be 8eas&re* with reasona#4e acc&racy, that is, it is not s&sce+ti#4e of 8at9e8atica4 co8+&tation &--C vs! "a ona, et al!, L-(2777, #a 2:, (<80'! #easured against such test, the act complained of in the present case such as the conduct of the election as originall set on 2( Fanuar (<<0 ma not be said to cause 3grave or irreparable3 damage to the petitioner-appellee

considering that an complaint or .uestion on the conduct of the election ma be the sub>ect of protest, an administrative remed available and convenient to the parties in the case! *n the contrar , considering that the +etition for iss&ance of a writ of inA&nction was filed #are4y two *ays #efore the date set for the conduct of the e4ection, when the e4ection 8ateria4s were a4rea*y rea*ie* and the other 8ec9anics for election had alread #een t9res9e* o&t, to sa the least, the *a8a7e t9at wo&4* res&4t wo&4* s&#stantia44y #e 8ore' s9o&4* t9e e4ection #e +ost+one* to anot9er in*efinite ti8e. 1t is well to remember that 3in>unctions or restraining orders are frowned upon as a matter of labor relations polic ,3 and as a general reminder9 There is no power the e%ercise of which is more delicate which re.uires greater caution, deliberation, and sound discretion, or &which is' more dangerous in a doubtful case than the issuing of an in>unctionB it is the strong arm of e.uit that never ought to be e%tended unless to cases of great in>ur , where courts of law cannot afford an ade.uate or commensurate remed in damages! The right must be clear, the in>ur impending or threatened, so as to be averted onl b the protecting preventive process of in>unction!

C. Proce*&ra4 ReF&ire8ents an* R&4es for t9e Iss&ance of La#or InA&nctions 2-J "c$ Bisi& n& ,an&&a&a?a v. 14RC, 229 SCRA << #<!% G.R. No. -1H1@1 P2N0% (e+te8#er - ' -@@! NAT2RE /etition for certiorari and mandamus 3ACT( - The labor conflict between the parties broke out in the open when the petitioner union struck on April 8, (<<0 protesting issues ranging from unfair labor practices and union busting allegedl committed b the private respondent! The union picketed the premises of the private respondent in PueCon Cit , RiCal, /ampanga and Laguna! - *n April @, (<<0, private respondent filed with the NLRC a petition for in>unction to stop the strike which it denounced as illegal! - The petition was set for hearing but the union claimed that it was not furnished a cop of the petition! Allegedl , the compan misrepresented its address to be at Rm! 0:7-8 Derald "ldg!, #uralla -t!, 1ntramuros, #anila! - *n April (2, (<<0, the NLRC heard the evidence of the compan alone! "efore the da was over, the respondent NLRC issued a temporar restraining order against the union! No cop of this *rder was furnished the union! The union learned of the *rder onl when it was posted on April (7, (<<0 at the premises of the compan !! - *n April 06, (<<0, the union also filed its own /etition for 1n>unction to en>oin the compan 3from asking the aid of the police and the militar officer in escorting scabs to enter the struck establishment!3 The records show that the case was heard on April 06 and 2:, #a 6 and 7, (<<0 b respondent Labor Arbiter ,nrilo /eWalosa! *n April 2:, (<<0, the compan filed a #otion for the 1mmediate 1ssuance of /reliminar 1n>unction, which the union opposed! *n #a 7, (<<0, however, the respondent NLRC issued its disputed *rder granting the compan $s motion for preliminar in>unction! I((2E )*N *rder of the NLRC infringes petitioners$ right to strike and must be struck down HELD IE( - The records will show that the respondent NLRC failed to compl with the letter and spirit of Article 0(@ &e', &6' and &7' of the Labor Code in issuing its *rder of #a 7, (<<0! Article 0(@ &e' of the Labor Code provides both the procedural and substantive re.uirements which must strictl be complied with before a temporar or permanent in>unction can issue in a labor dispute, viC9 3ART! 0(@! /owers of the Commission! -- The Commission shall have the power and authorit 9 %%% %%% %%% &e' To en>oin or restrain an actual or threatened commission of an or all prohibited or unlawful acts or to re.uire the performance of a particular act in an labor dispute which, if not restrained or performed forthwith, ma

cause grave or irreparable damage to an part or render ineffectual an decision in favor of such part 9 /rovided, That no temporar or permanent in>unction in an case involving or growing out of a labor dispute as defined in this Code shall be issued e%cept after hearing the testimon of witnesses, with opportunit for cross-e%amination, in support of the allegations of a complaint made under oath, and testimon in opposition thereto, if offered, and onl after a finding of fact b the commission, to the effect9 3&(' That prohibited or unlawful acts have been threatened and will be committed and will be continued unless restrained but no in>unction or temporar restraining order shall be issued on account of an threat, prohibited or unlawful act, e%cept against the person or persons, association or organiCation making the threat or committing the prohibited or unlawful act or actuall authoriCing or ratif ing the same after actual knowledge thereofB 3&0' That substantial and irreparable in>ur to complainants propert will followB 3&2' That as to each item of relief to be granted, greater in>ur will be inflicted upon complainant b the denial of relief than will be inflicted upon defendants b the granting of reliefB 3&6' That complainant has no ade.uate remed at lawB and3&7' That the public officers charged with the dut to protect complainants propert are unable or unwilling to furnish ade.uate protection! 3-uch hearing shall be held after due and personal notice thereof has been served, in such manner as the Commission shall direct, to all known persons against whom relief is sought, and also to the Chief ,%ecutive and other public officials of the province or cit within which the unlawful have been threatened or committed charged with the dut to protect complainant$s propert 9 ! ! !3 - 1n his Comment, the -olicitor Eeneral cited various evidence on record showing the failure of public respondents to fulfill the re.uirements, especiall of paragraphs four and five of the above cited law! The factual circumstances proven b the evidence show that there was no concurrence of the five prere.uisites mandated b Art! 0(@&e' of the Labor Code! Thus there is no >ustification for the issuance of the .uestioned *rder of preliminar in>unction! - #oreover, the records reveal the continuing misuse of unfair strategies to secure e% parte temporar restraining orders against striking emplo ees! /etitioner union did not receive an cop of private respondent$s petition for in>unction! 1ts address, as alleged b the private respondent, turned out to be 3erroneous3! Conse.uentl , the petitioner was denied the right to attend the hearing while the private respondent en>o ed a field da presenting its evidence e% parte! *n the basis of uncontested evidence, the public respondent temporaril en>oined the petitioner from committing certain alleged illegal acts! Again, a cop of the *rder was sent to the

wrong address of the petitioner! Mnowledge of the *rder came to the petitioner onl when its striking members read it after it was posted at the struck areas of the private respondent! - To be sure, the issuance of an e% parte temporar restraining order in a labor dispute is not per se prohibited! 1ts issuance, however, should be characteriCed 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 compan properties and the compan is, for the moment, bereft of an ade.uate remed at law! This is as it ought to be, for imprudentl issued temporar restraining orders can break the back of emplo ees engaged in a legal strike! *ften times, the undul tilt the balance of a labor warfare in favor of capital! )hen that happens, the deleterious effects of a wrongfull issued, e% parte temporar restraining order on the rights of striking emplo ees can no longer be repaired for the def simple monetiCation! #oreover, e%perience shows that e% parte applications for restraining orders are often based on fabricated facts and concealed truths! A more becoming sense of fairness, therefore, demands that such e% parte applications should be more minutel e%amined b hearing officers, lest, our constitutional polic of protecting labor becomes nothing but a s nthetic shibboleth! The immediate need to hear and resolve these e% parte applications do not provide an e%cuse to lower our vigilance in protecting labor against the issuance of indiscriminate in>unctions! -tated otherwise, it behooves hearing officers receiving evidence in support of e% parte in>unctions against emplo ees in strike to take a more active stance in seeing to it that their right to social >ustice is in no wa violated despite their absence! This e.ualiCing stance was not taken in the case at bar b the public respondents! +isposition The petition is granted!