Digests 10

8/12/2019 Digests 10

1/18

1

TOYOTA V NLRC

OCT 19, 2007

In May 2000, Mediator-Arbiter Ma. Zosima Lameyra issued an order certifying Toyota Motor

Philippines Corporation Workers Association as the exclusive bargaining agent of all Toyota

rank-and-file employees. Toyota filed a motion for reconsideration assailing the said order.

Lameyra denied the motion and Toyota eventually appealed the order before the DOLE

Secretary.

Meanwhile, the Union submitted its collective bargaining agreement (CBA) proposals to Toyota

but the latter refused to bargain pending its appeal before the DOLE Secretary. The Union then

filed a notice of strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB). The NCMB

converted the notice of strike to a preventive mediation considering that the DOLE Secretary

was yet to decide on Toyotas appeal.

In relation to Toyotas appeal, the parties were invited to a hearing. Union members were not

allowed to attend the hearing as they were aptly represented by the Union. But despite this,

many Union members and officers failed to render overtime and work on the following day

which caused Toyota to lose P53,849,991.00. The union members went to the hearing and

assembled before the Bureau of Labor Relations.

Subsequently, Toyota terminated 227 employees. The terminated employees allegedly

abandoned their work.

This resulted to another rally within Toyotas premises as the strikers barricaded the entrances

of Toyota preventing non-strikers from going to work.

In April 2001, the DOLE Secretary assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute and issued a

return-to-work order. The Union ended its strike in the same month. However, in May and June

2001, union members still conducted rallies and pickets.

ISSUE: Whether or not the strikes conducted by the Union on different occasions are illegal.

HELD: Yes. The strike conducted before the BLR as well as the strike conducted when the 227

employees were terminated is illegal because both did not go through the proper procedure

required by the Labor Code. It cannot be said that the strike conducted before the BLR is

beyond the ambit of the strikes contemplated in the Labor Code. The Union argues that the

strike is actually a protest directed against the government and is covered by their

constitutional right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of

grievances. The SC disagreed with this argument because the Union failed to provide evidence

that the Mediator-Arbiter was biased against them. Further, if this were the kind of protest

8/12/2019 Digests 10

2/18

2

they were claiming, they should have secured a rally permit. Further still, this case involves a

labor dispute. The employees may shroud their strike as mere demonstrations covered by the

constitution but in reality these are temporary work stoppages.

The strikes conducted after the DOLE Secretary assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute are

illegal for they violated the return-to-work order.

The Supreme Court also cited the 6 categories of illegal strikes which are:

1. When it is contrary to a specific prohibition of law, such as strike by employees performing

governmental functions; or

2. When it violates a specific requirement of law, [such as Article 263 of the Labor Code on the

requisites of a valid strike]; or

3. When it is declared for an unlawful purpose, such as inducing the employer to commit an

unfair labor practice against non-union employees; or

4. When it employs unlawful means in the pursuit of its objective, such as a widespread

terrorism of non-strikers [for example, prohibited acts under Art. 264(e) of the Labor Code]; or

5. When it is declared in violation of an existing injunction, [such as injunction, prohibition, or

order issued by the DOLE Secretary and the NLRC under Art. 263 of the Labor Code]; or

6. When it is contrary to an existing agreement, such as a no-strike clause or conclusive

arbitration clause.

Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization vs. PBM, 51 SCRA 189

Facts: Philippine Blooming Employees Organization (PBMEO) decided to stage a mass

demonstration in front of Malacaang to express their grievances against the alleged abuses of

the Pasig Police.

After learning about the planned mass demonstration, PhilippineBlooming Mills Inc., called for

a meeting with the leaders of the PBMEO. During the meeting, the planned demonstration was

confirmed by the union. But it was stressed out that the demonstration was not a strike against

the company but was in fact an exercise of the laborers inalienable constitutional

right to freedom of expression, freedom of speech and freedom for petition for redress of

grievances.

The company asked them to cancel the demonstration for it would interrupt the normal course

of their business which may result in the loss of revenue. This was backed up with the threat of

8/12/2019 Digests 10

3/18

3

the possibility that the workers would lose their jobs if they pushed through with the rally.

A second meeting took place where the company reiterated their appeal that while the workers

may be allowed to participate, those from the 1st and regular shifts should not absent

themselves to participate , otherwise, they would be dismissed. Since it was too late to cancelthe plan, the rally took place and the officers of the PBMEO were eventually dismissed for a

violation of the No Strike and No Lockout clause of theirCollective Bargaining Agreement.

The lower court decided in favor of the company and the officers of the PBMEO were found

guilty of bargaining in bad faith. Their motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied by

the Court of Industrial Relations for being filed two days late.

Issue: Whether or not the workers who joined the strike violated the CBA.

Held: No. While the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the primacy of human rights

over property rights is recognized. Because these freedoms are "delicate and vulnerable, as

well as supremely precious in our society" and the "threat of sanctions may deter their exercise

almost as potently as the actual application of sanctions," they "need breathing space to

survive," permitting government regulation only "with narrow specificity." Property and

property rights can be lost thru prescription; but human rights are imprescriptible. In the

hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free expression and of assembly occupy a preferred

position as they are essential to the preservation and vitality of our civil and political

institutions; and such priority "gives these liberties the sanctity and the sanction not permitting

dubious intrusions."

The freedoms of speech and of the press as well as of peaceful assembly and of petition for

redress of grievances are absolute when directed against public officials or "when exercised in

relation to our right to choose the men and women by whom we shall be governed.

BILFLEX PHIL. INC. LABOR UNION et al.

VS

FILFLEX INDUSTRIAL AND MANUFACTURING CORPORATION AND BILFLEX (PHILS.), INC.

511 SCRA 247 (2006)

Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union who

knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have

lost his employment status.

Biflex Philippines Inc. Labor Union and Filflex Industrial and Manufacturing Labor Union are the

respective collective bargaining agents of the employees of the sister companies Biflex and

8/12/2019 Digests 10

4/18

8/12/2019 Digests 10

5/18

5

of discrimination and union-busting in carrying out the said retrenchment program, YSSEU

decided to hold a valid strike. A number of conciliation proceedings were made by the NCMB-

NCR but still the dispute was not resolved. This prompted the Sectary of Labor to intervene.

Finding that the labor dispute was inimical to the national interest, it certifies the case to the

NLRC for compulsory arbitration and issued two orders: first, directing all striking workers toreturn to work and for the Company to accept them back under the same terms and conditions

of employment prior to the strike; second, that the nine retrenched employees be included in

the return to work order. Aggrieved, YSS Laboratories filed a petition under Rule 65 before the

Court of Appeals in which the latter reversed the orders of the Secretary of Labor and granted

the petition of YSS Laboratories. The appellate court found that YSS Laboratories validly carried

out its retrenchment program, which effectively severed the concerned employees

employment with the company. Hence, YSSEU comes to this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the retrenched employees should be excluded from the coverage of the

return-to-work- order.

HELD:

The Orders of the Secretary of Labor, certifying the labor dispute involving the herein

parties to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration, and enjoining YSSEU to return to work and YSSLaboratories to admit them under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike,

were issued pursuant to Article 263(g) of the Labor Code. Said provision reads:

Art. 263. Strikes, picketing, and lockouts.

x x x x

(g) When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout

in an industry indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of Labor and Employment

may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify the same to the Commissionfor compulsory arbitration. Such assumption or certification shall have the effect of

automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout as specified in the

assumption or certification order. If one has already taken place at the time of assumption or

certification, all striking or locked out employees shall immediately return to work and the

employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same

terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout.

8/12/2019 Digests 10

6/18

6

It should be noted that the primary reason why the strike was conducted in the first

place was to protest the implementation of the retrenchment program, which clearly

discriminated against union officers and members. YSS Laboratories vigorous insistence on the

exclusion of the retrenched employees from the coverage of the return-to-work order seriously

impairs the authority of the Secretary of Labor to forestall a labor dispute that he deems

inimical to the national economy. Accordingly, when the Secretary of Labor directed YSS

Laboratories to accept all the striking workers back to work, the Secretary did not exceed his

jurisdiction, or gravely abuse the same, said the Supreme Court. Hence, the petition is granted.

The orders of the Secretary of Labor and Employment are hereby reinstated

62. Solidbank Corporation v. Gamier, G.R. No. 159461, November 15, 2010

Facts:

Sometime in October 1999, petitioner Solidbank and respondent Solidbank Employees Union

(Union) were set to renegotiate the economic provisions of their 1997-2001 Collective

Bargaining Agreement (CBA) to cover the remaining two years thereof. Negotiations

commenced on November 17, 1999 but seeing that an agreement was unlikely, the Union

declared a deadlock on December 22, 1999 and filed a Notice of Strike on December 29,

1999. During the collective bargaining negotiations, some Union members staged a series ofmass actions. In view of the impending actual strike, then Secretary of Labor and Employment

Bienvenido E. Laguesma assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute, pursuant to Article 263 (g)

of the Labor Code, as amended. The assumption order dated January 18, 2000 directed the

parties "to cease and desist from committing any and all acts that might exacerbate the

situation.

Dissatisfied with the Secretarys ruling, the Union officers and members decided to protest the

same by holding a rally infront of the Office of the Secretary of Labor and Employment in

Intramuros, Manila, simultaneous with the filing of their motion for reconsideration of the

March 24, 2000 Order. Thus, on April 3, 2000, an overwhelming majority of employees,

including the individual respondents, joined the "mass leave" and "protest action" at the

Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) office while the banks provincial branches in

Cebu, Iloilo, Bacolod and Naga followed suit and "boycotted regular work. The union members

8/12/2019 Digests 10

7/18

7

also picketed the banks Head Office in Binondo on April 6, 2000, and Paseo de Roxas branch on

April 7, 2000.

As a result of the employees concerted actions, Solidbanks business operations were

paralyzed. On the same day, then President of Solidbank, Deogracias N. Vistan, issued a

memorandum addressed to all employees calling their absence from work and demonstration

infront of the DOLE office as an illegal act, and reminding them that they have put their jobs at

risk as they will be asked to show cause why they should not be terminated for participating in

the union-instigated concerted action. The employees work abandonment/boycott lasted for

three days, from April 3 to 5, 2000.

On the third day of the concerted work boycott (April 5, 2000), Vistan issued another

memorandum, this time declaring that the bank is prepared to take back employees who will

report for work starting April 6, 2000 "provided these employees were/are not part of those

who led or instigated or coerced their co-employees into participating in this illegal act." Out ofthe 712 employees who took part in the three-day work boycott, a total of 513 returned to

work and were accepted by the bank. The remaining 199 employees insisted on defying Vistans

directive, which included herein respondents Ernesto U. Gamier, Elena R. Condevillamar, Janice

L. Arriola and Ophelia C. De Guzman. For their failure to return to work, the said 199 employees

were each issued a show-cause memo directing them to submit a written explanation within

twenty-four (24) hours why they should not be dismissed for the "illegal strike in defiance of

the Assumption Order of the Secretary of Labor resulting to grave and irreparable damage to

the Bank", and placing them under preventive suspension.

Gamier, Condevillamar, Arriola and De Guzman filed complaints for illegal dismissal, moral and

exemplary damages and attorneys fees.

Issue:

Whether the respondents were validly terminated?

Ruling:

8/12/2019 Digests 10

8/18

8

The Court has consistently ruled that once the Secretary of Labor assumes jurisdiction over a

labor dispute, such jurisdiction should not be interfered with by the application of the coercive

processes of a strike or lockout. A strike that is undertaken despite the issuance by the

Secretary of Labor of an assumption order and/or certification is a prohibited activity and thus

illegal.

Article 264 (a) of the Labor Code, as amended, also considers it a prohibited activity to declare a

strike "during the pendency of cases involving the same grounds for the same strike." There is

no dispute that when respondents conducted their mass actions on April 3 to 6, 2000, the

proceedings before the Secretary of Labor were still pending as both parties filed motions for

reconsideration of the March 24, 2000 Order. Clearly, respondents knowingly violated the

aforesaid provision by holding a strike in the guise of mass demonstration simultaneous with

concerted work abandonment/boycott.

However, a worker merely participating in an illegal strike may not be terminated from

employment. It is only when he commits illegal acts during a strike that he may be declared to

have lost employment status. The Court have held that the responsibility of union officers, as

main players in an illegal strike, is greater than that of the members and, therefore, limiting the

penalty of dismissal only for the former for participation in an illegal strike is in order.

For the respondents who are union members, the rule is that an ordinary striking worker

cannot be terminated for mere participation in an illegal strike. There must be proof that he or

she committed illegal acts during a strike. In all cases, the striker must be identified. But proof

beyond reasonable doubt is not required. Substantial evidence available under the attendant

circumstances, which may justify the imposition of the penalty of dismissal, may suffice.

Liability for prohibited acts is to be determined on an individual basis.

Petitioners have not adduced evidence on such illegal acts committed by each of the individual

respondents who are union members. Instead, petitioners simply point to their admitted

participation in the mass actions which they knew to be illegal, being in violation of the

Secretarys assumption order.

8/12/2019 Digests 10

9/18

9

The dismissal of herein respondent-union members are therefore unjustified in the absence of

a clear showing that they committed specific illegal acts during the mass actions and concerted

work boycott.

The award of backwages is a legal consequence of a finding of illegal dismissal. Assuming that

respondent-union members have indeed reported back to work at the end of the concerted

mass actions, but were soon terminated by petitioners who found their explanation

unsatisfactory, they are not entitled to backwages in view of the illegality of the said strike.

Under the circumstances, respondents reinstatement without backwages suffices for the

appropriate relief. But since reinstatement is no longer possible, given the lapse of considerable

time from the occurrence of the strike, not to mention the fact that Solidbank had long ceasedits banking operations, the award of separation pay of one (1) month salary for each year of

service, in lieu of reinstatement, is in order.

8/12/2019 Digests 10

10/18

10

Sta. Rosa Coca-Cola Plant Employees Union v. Coca-Cola Bottlers, Philippines, Inc., 512 SCRA

437 (07)

312 SCRA 437 CALLEJO, SR; January 24, 2007

NATURE 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

FACTS

- The union is the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the regular paid workers and

the manthly paid non-ccommission earning employees of the comopany. individual petitioners

are union officers,directors and shop stewards.

- The union and the company entered into a 3 year CBA. upon the expiration, the union told the

company that they wanted to negotiate the terms. the union insisted that representatives from

Alyansa ng mga Unyon ng Coca Cola be allowed to observe the CBA meetings. the company

8/12/2019 Digests 10

11/18

11

refused to allow alyansa to observe and an impasse ensued. union officers, directors and

stewards filed a notice of strrice with NCMB based on deadlock on CBA and unfair labor

practice arising from the company's refusal to bargain. the grounds were ammended to unfair

labor practice for the company's refusal to bargain in good faith and interference with the

exercise if their right to self-organization.

- pending the notice to strike, the union decided to participate in a mass action by alyansa in

front of the company's premises. operations would come to complete stops for insufficiency of

contractual employees who would take over. after the mass strike (separate and distinct from

the mass action), the company filed to declare strike illegal, to declare the officers of union and

individual respondents to have lost their employment status, to declare the union, its officers

and members guilty of unfair labor practice to violation of the CBA, and to award them

damages.

- the LA found the strike to be illegal such that the participants lost their employment status.the CA affirmed the decision.

ISSUE/S 1. WON the mass action wit Alyansa is actually a strike

HELD 1. YES

Ratio Thefactual findings and conclusions of tribunals, as long as based on substantial

evidence, are conclusive on the SC.

Reasoning The term strike1encompasses not only concerted work stoppages, but also

slowdowns, mass leaves, sit-downs, attempts to damage, destroy or sabotage plant equipmentand facilities, and similar activities. Picketing involves merely the marching to and fro at the

premises of the employer, usually accompanied by the display 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. Petitioners notified the respondent of their intention to stage a strike,

and not merely to picket.

Disposition Petition is denied for lack of merit. CA decision is affirmed.

SUKHOTHAI CUISINE v CA (NLRC, PLAC)

495 SCRA 336AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ; JULY 17, 2006NATURE

Appeal by certiorari

1 Article 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.

8/12/2019 Digests 10

12/18

12

FACTS- On December 3, 1998, employees of Sukhothai Cuisine andRestaurant (duly organized as a union, affiliated with privaterespondent Philippine Labor Alliance Council [PLAC], anddesignated as PLAC local 460 Sukhothai chapter) filed a Notice

of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board(NCMB) on the ground of unfair labor practice (ULP) andparticularly, acts of harassment, fault-finding, and union bustingthrough coercion and interference with union affairs.- In a subsequent conciliation conference, representatives of thepetitioner agreed and guaranteed that there will be notermination of the services of private respondents during thependency of the case, with the reservation of the managementprerogative to issue memos to erring employees for the infraction,or violation of company policies.- In a Submission Agreement, the issue of unfair labor practice

was later submitted for voluntary arbitration, during the pendencyof which, the petitioner, through its president, Ernesto Garcia,dismissed Eugene Lucente, a union member, due to an allegedpetty quarrel with a co-employee. In view of this termination,private respondent Union filed with the NLRC a complaint forillegal dismissal. Another employee, private respondent JoseLanorias, likewise a union member, was relieved from his post andterminated from employment. Shortly thereafter, respondents staged awildcat strike which was later transformed into an actual strike. - On June 29, 1999, the petitioner filed a complaint for illegal strike withthe NLRC against private respondents, and for a declaration thatrespondents who participated in the commission of illegal acts have losttheir employment status. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitionerand held that the Notice of Strike and the Strike Vote referred to a priordispute submitted for voluntary arbitration and cannot apply to the strikestaged about six months later; that, instead of resorting to a strike,private respondents should have availed of the proper legal remediessuch as the filing of complaints for illegal suspension or illegal dismissalwith the NLRC; and that even if private respondents complied with allthe requisites of a valid strike, the strike is still illegal due to thecommission of prohibited acts, including the obstruction of free ingressand egress of the premises, intimidation, and threat inflicted upon nonstrikingemployees.- Private respondents appealed to the NLRC which decided in their favorand held that the petitioner is guilty of union busting; of violating theSubmission Agreement that no termination shall be effected during thevoluntary arbitration proceedings; that the Notice of Strike and StrikeVote are applicable to the strike of June 24, 25, and 26, 1999 since thesame issues of ULP were involved and that ULPs are continuingoffenses.

8/12/2019 Digests 10

13/18

13

- After the NLRC denied the MFR, petitioner appealed to the CA, whichlater denied the petition and affirmed the NLRC hence this case.ISSUES1. WON the strike was illegal2. WON private respondents are deemed to have lost their employment

status by participating in the commission of illegal acts during the strike.3. WON the requisites for a valid strike may be dispensed with in case ofunion-busting.HELD1. YES. The strike was illegal.RatioArt.264 of the LC provides: No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption of jurisdiction by the Pres. or the Secretary or aftercertification or submission of the dispute to compulsory or voluntaryarbitration or during the pendency of cases involving the same groundsfor the strike or lockout.- Strikes staged in violation of agreements providing for arbitration are

illegal, since these agreements must be strictly adhered to andrespected if their ends are to be achieved, for it is among the chiefpolicies of the State to promote and emphasize the primacy of freecollective bargaining and negotiations, including voluntary arbitration,mediation, and conciliation, as modes of settling labor, or industrialdisputes.Reasoning Once jurisdiction over the labor dispute has been properlyacquired by competent authority, that jurisdiction should not beinterfered with by the application of the coercive processes of a strike.- The alleged dismissals of Lucente and respondent Lanorias, bothunion members, which allegedly triggered the wildcat strike, are notsufficient grounds to justify the radical recourse on the part of the privaterespondents. These matters should have been raised and resolved inthe voluntary arbitration proceedings that were commenced precisely toaddress them.- Private respondents should have first availed of the appropriateremedies under the Labor Code, such as the institution of cases ofillegal dismissal or, by agreement of the parties, the submission of thecases to the grievance machinery of the CBA, if one is available, so thatthey may be subjected to separate voluntary arbitration proceedings, orsimply seek to terminate the pending voluntary arbitration case andcomplete the mandatory procedure for a lawful strike. Privaterespondents should have availed themselves of any of these alternativeremedies instead of resorting to a drastic and unlawful measure,specifically, the holding a wildcat strike. And because of the fact that theUnion was fully aware that the arbitration proceedings were pending,good faith cannot be invoked as a defense.- Moreover, even if the strike were to be declared valid because itsobjective or purpose is lawful, the strike may still be declared invalidwhere the means employed are illegal. Among such limits are the

8/12/2019 Digests 10

14/18

14

prohibited activities under Art. 264(e) of the LC, which states that noperson engaged in picketing shall: a) commit any act of violence,coercion, or intimidation or b) obstruct the free ingress to oregress from the employer's premises for lawful purposes, or (c)obstruct public thoroughfares.

2. YES. The strike had been attended by the widespreadcommission of prohibited acts.Reasoning Under Art.264(a) of the LC: Any union officer whoknowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or unionofficer who knowingly participates in the commission of illegalacts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employmentstatus: Provided, that mere participation of a worker in a lawfulstrike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of hisemployment, even if a replacement had been hired by theemployer during such lawful strike.- The evidence in the record clearly and extensively shows that

the individual respondents engaged in illegal acts during thestrike, such as the intimidation and harassment of a considerablenumber of customers to turn them away and discourage themfrom patronizing the business of the petitioner; waving their armsand shouting at the passersby, Huwag kayong pumasok saSukhothai! and Nilagyan na namin ng lason ang pagkaindyan! as well as numerous other statements made to discredit the reputation of the establishment; preventing the entry ofcustomers; angry and unruly behavior calculated to causecommotion which affected neighboring establishments within themall; openly cursing and shouting at the president in front ofcustomers and using loud and abusive language, such asPutang ina niyong lahat!, toward the rest of the management aswell as their co-workers who refused to go on strike; physicallypreventing non-strikers from entering the premises, as well asdeliberately blocking their movements inside the restaurant, attimes by sharply bumping into them or through indecent physicalcontact; openly threatening non-strikers with bodily harm, suchas Pag hindi sila pumayag, upakan mo!; and shouting at the security guard Granada! which caused panic among thecustomers and prompted security to report a possible deaththreat to management and the security agency.3. NO.Reasoning In case of alleged union busting, it is only the 15-daycooling-off period that may be dispensed with, the threeremaining requirementsnotice, strike vote, and seven-dayreport periodcannot be dispensed with.Disposi t ion Petition GRANTED. Decisions of the CA and theNLRC are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Decision of the LAREINSTATED. The strike held ILLEGAL and Union officers who

8/12/2019 Digests 10

15/18

15

participated in the illegal strike and in the commission of illegalacts, as well as the union members who participated in thecommission of illegal acts during the strike, are declared to havelost their employment status.

Liwayway Publishing Co., Inc. v. Permanent Concrete Workers Union, 108 SCRA 161 (81)

108 SCRA 161 GUERRERO; October 23, 1981

NATURE -This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance

FACTS -While a labor dispute between defendant-appellant union and Permanent Concrete

Products, Inc. was pending before the Court of Industrial Relations, the Court of First Instance

of Manila issued in an action for damages filed by the plaintiff-appellee Liwayway Publications,

Inc. a writ of preliminary injunction against appellant union which picketed and prevented

entrance to the gate leading to the bodega of appellee and threatened its officers and

employees despite the fact that the appellee is not in anyway related to the striking union but a

mere sublessee of said bodega in the compound of Permanent Concrete Products, Inc. against

whom the strike was staged. Appellant union filed a motion to dismiss and motion to dissolve

the writ on the ground that only the Court of Industrial Relations and not the Court of First

Instance has exclusive jurisdiction over the labor dispute; that the appellee has no cause of

action against the striking union but against the lessor; and that plaintiff-appellee is not the real

party in interest but Permanent Concrete Products, Inc. The lower court denied the motion for

lack of labor dispute between the plaintiff and defendant of which the Court of Industrial

Relations may take cognizance and rendered a decision declaring the writ permanent and

ordering the payment of damages, attorney's fees and costs.

ISSUEWON this case involves or has arisen out of a labor dispute. If it does, then with certainty,

Section 9 of Republic Act 875, the "Industrial Peace Act," would apply. If it does not, then the

Rules of Court will govern the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction because it will not

partake the nature of a labor injunction which the lower court has no jurisdiction to issue.

HELDNO. The business of the appellee is exclusively the publication of the magazines

Bannawag, Bisaya, Hiligaynon and Liwayway weekly magazines which has absolutely no relation

or connection whatsoever with the cause of the strike of the union against their company,

much less with the terms, conditions or demands of the strikers. The appellee is a third party

or an "innocent by-stander" whose right has been invaded and, therefore, entitled to

protection by 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 by the constitution. If peacefully carried out, it cannot be

curtailed even in the absence of employer-employee relationship.The right is, however, not an

8/12/2019 Digests 10

16/18

16

absolute one. While peaceful picketing is entitled to protection as an exercise of free speech,

we believe that courts are not without power to confine or localize the sphere of

communication 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 totally foreign to the context of the dispute. Thus, the right may be regulated atthe instance of third parties or `innocent bystanders' if it appears that the inevitable result of its

exercise is to create an impression that a labor dispute with which they have no connection or

interest exists between them and the picketing union or constitute an invasion of their rights. In

one case decided by this Court, we upheld a trial court's injunction 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 situated in the same premises. It is to be noted that in the instances cited,

peaceful picketing has not been totally banned but merely regulated. And in one American

case, a picket by a labor union in front of a motion picture theater with which the union had a

labor dispute was enjoined by the court from being extended in front of the main entrance of

the building housing the theater wherein other stores operated by third persons were located.

-On appeal, the Supreme Court in upholding the jurisdiction of the lower court to issue the writ

of preliminary injunction, ruled that: (a) there is no connection between the appellee, the

appellant union and the Permanent Concrete Products, Inc. and the fact, that the latter and

appellee are situated in the same premises, can hardly be considered as interwoven with the

labor dispute pending with the Court of Industrial Relations; and (b) the acts of the striking

union are mere acts of trespass for which the lessee shall have a direct action against the

trespasser.

Disposition Decision appealed from, affirmed in toto.

MSF Tire and Rubber Inc. v. CA, 311 SCRA 784 (99)

311 SCRA 784 MENDOZA; August 5, 1999

NATURE Petiton for review on certiorari of a decision of the CA

FACTS -A labor dispute arose between Philtread Tire and Rubber Corporation (Philtread) and

private respondent, Philtread Tire Workers Union (Union)

-Union filed a notice of strike in the National Conciliation and Mediation Board charging

Philtread with unfair labor practices for allegedly engaging in union-busting for violation of the

provisions of the collective bargaining agreement.

8/12/2019 Digests 10

17/18

17

-Thereafter, they picketed and assembled outside the gate of Philtreads plant.

-Philtread, on the other hand, filed a notice of lockout.

-The Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute and certified it for

compulsory arbitration.

-During the pendency of the labor dispute, Philtread entered into a Memorandum of

Agreement with Siam Tyre Public Company Limited (Siam Tyre) whereby its plant and

equipment would be sold to a new company, herein petitioner, 80% of which would be owned

by Siam Tyre and 20% by Philtread, while the land on which the plant was located would be

sold to another company, 60% of which would be owned by Philtread and 40% by Siam Tyre.

-Petitioner then asked respondent Union to desist from picketing outside its plant.

-As the respondent Union refused petitioners request, petitioner filed a complaint for

injunction with damages before the Regional Trial Court of Makati.

-Respondent Union moved to dismiss the complaint alleging lack of jurisdiction on the part of

the trial court.

-The trial court denied petitioners application for injunction and dismissed the complaint.

-However, on petitioners motion, the trial court reconsidered its order and granted an

injunction.

-The respondent Union filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the CA.

-CA ruled in favor of respondent Union, hence, petitioner filed this petition asserting that its

status as an innocent bystander entitled it to a writ of injunction.

ISSUE WON petitioner has shown a clear legal right to the issuance of a writ of injunction under

the innocent bystander rule

HELD No.

-In Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) v. Cloribel, this Court, through Justice

J.B.L. Reyes, stated the innocent bystander rule as follows: The right to picket as a means of

communicating the facts of a labor dispute is a phase of the freedom of speech guaranteed by

the constitution. If peacefully carried out, it can not be curtailed even in the absence of

employer-employee relationship.

-The right is, however, not an absolute one. While peaceful picketing is entitled to protection

as an exercise of free speech, we believe the courts are not without power to confine or

8/12/2019 Digests 10

18/18

18

localize the sphere of communication 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 totally foreign to the context of the dispute.

-Thus the right may be regulated at the instance of third parties or innocent bystanders if it

appears that the inevitable result of its exercise is to create an impression that a labor

dispute with which they have no connection or interest exists between them and the

picketing union or constitute an invasion of their rights.

-Thus, an innocent bystander, who seeks to enjoin a labor strike, must satisfy the court that

aside from the grounds specified in Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, it is entirely different from,

without any connection whatsoever to, either party to the dispute and, therefore, its interests

are totally foreign to the context thereof.

-In the case at bar, petitioner cannot be said not to have such connection to the dispute.

-As correctly observed by the appellate court: we find that the negotiation, contract of sale,

and the post transaction between Philtread, as vendor, and Siam Tyre, as vendee, reveals a

legal relation between them which, in the interest of petitioner, we cannot ignore. To be sure,

the transaction between Philtread and Siam Tyre, was not a simple sale whereby Philtread

ceased to have any proprietary rights over its sold assets. On the contrary, Philtread remains as

20% owner of private respondent and 60% owner of Sucat Land Corporation which was likewise

incorporated in accordance with the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement with Siam Tyre,

and which now owns the land were subject plant is located. This, together with the fact that

private respondent uses the same plant or factory; similar or substantially the same workingconditions; same machinery, tools, and equipment; and manufacture the same products as

Philtread, lead us to safely conclude that private respondents personality is so closely linked to

Philtread as to bar its entitlement to an injunctive writ.

Disposition Petition is denied.

Prohibited ActivitiesPeaceful Picketing264 (b), Arts. 289 and 312 Revised Penal Code