-
7/23/2019 LL1 case1
1/40
-
7/23/2019 LL1 case1
2/40
-
7/23/2019 LL1 case1
3/40
-
7/23/2019 LL1 case1
4/40
-
7/23/2019 LL1 case1
5/40
that $a*e a real difference as infanc', se!, and sta&e of civiliation of $inorit' &roups,
the better rule, it )ould see$, is to reco&nie its validit' onl' if the 'oun&, the )o$en,
and the cultural $inorities are sin&led out for favorable treat$ent. There )ould be anele$ent of unreasonableness if on the contrar' their status that calls for the la)
$inisterin& to their needs is $ade the basis of discri$inator' le&islation a&ainst the$. If
such be the case, it )ould be difficult to refute the assertion of denial of e?ualprotection.% 23In the case at bar, the assailed rder clearl' accords protection to certain
)o$en )or*ers, and not the contrar'.#
It is incorrect to sa' that +epart$ent rder No. prescribes a total ban on overseas
deplo'$ent. (ro$ scattered provisions of the rder, it is evident that such a total ban hashot been conte$plated. 5e ?uote
>. A1T3RIGE+ +EP/4MENT:The deplo'$ent of do$estic helpers and
)or*ers of si$ilar s*ills defined herein to the follo)in& Hsic are authoried
under these &uidelines and are e!e$pted fro$ the suspension.
>. 3irin&s b' i$$ediate $e$bers of the fa$il' of 3eads of State and
0overn$ent7
>.= 3irin&s b' Minister, +eput' Minister and the other senior
&overn$ent officials7 and
>.8 3irin&s b' senior officials of the diplo$atic corps and dul'accredited international or&aniations.
>. 3irin&s b' e$plo'ers in countries )ith )ho$ the Philippines have
Hsic bilateral labor a&ree$ents or understandin&.
!!! !!! !!!
J. 2ACATININ0 +MESTIC 3E/PERS AN+ 5R6ERS ( SIMI/ARS6I//S::2acationin& do$estic helpers andFor )or*ers of si$ilar s*ills shall be
allo)ed to process )ith the PEA and leave for )or*site onl' if the' are
returnin& to the sa$e e$plo'er to finish an e!istin& or partiall' servede$plo'$ent contract. Those )or*ers returnin& to )or*site to serve a ne)
e$plo'er shall be covered b' the suspension and the provision of these
&uidelines.
!!! !!! !!!
-. /I(TIN0 ( S1SPENSIN:The Secretar' of /abor and E$plo'$ent
"+/E# $a', upon reco$$endation of the Philippine verseas E$plo'$ent
Ad$inistration "PEA#, lift the suspension in countries )here there are
. Bilateral a&ree$ents or understandin& )ith the Philippines, andFor,
-
7/23/2019 LL1 case1
6/40
-
7/23/2019 LL1 case1
7/40
the loftier purposes tar&etted b' the 0overn$ent. 31(reedo$ of contract and enterprise,
li*e all other freedo$s, is not free fro$ restrictions, $ore so in this
-
7/23/2019 LL1 case1
8/40
ENJAMIN VICTORIANO,plaintiff:appellee,
vs.
ELIAL"E ROPE :OR!ERS; UNION #n+ ELIAL"E ROPE FACTOR-.
The undisputed facts that spa)ned the instant case follo)
Ben, prior to its a$end$ent b'
Republic Act No. 88>, the e$plo'er )as not precluded %fro$ $a*in& an a&ree$ent )ith
a labor or&aniation to re?uire as a condition of e$plo'$ent $e$bership therein, if such
labor or&aniation is the representative of the e$plo'ees.% n @une , -L, ho)ever,Republic Act No. 88> )as enacted, introducin& an a$end$ent to D para&raph "#
subsection "a# of section of Republic Act No. J>, as follo)s ... %but such a&ree$ent
shall not cover $e$bers of an' reli&ious sects )hich prohibit affiliation of their $e$bers
in an' such labor or&aniation%.
Bein& a $e$ber of a reli&ious sect that prohibits the affiliation of its $e$bers )ith an'
labor or&aniation, Appellee presented his resi&nation to appellant 1nion in -L=, and
)hen no action )as ta*en thereon, he reiterated his resi&nation on Septe$ber 8, -J.Thereupon, the 1nion )rote a for$al letter to the Co$pan' as*in& the latter to separate
Appellee fro$ the service in vie) of the fact that he )as resi&nin& fro$ the 1nion as a
$e$ber. The $ana&e$ent of the Co$pan' in turn notified Appellee and his counsel that
-
7/23/2019 LL1 case1
9/40
unless the Appellee could achieve a satisfactor' arran&e$ent )ith the 1nion, the
Co$pan' )ould be constrained to dis$iss hi$ fro$ the service. This pro$pted Appellee
to file an action for in- in the Court of (irstInstance of Manila to en for attorne';s fees and the costs of this action.3
(ro$ this decision, the 1nion appealed directl' to this Court on purel' ?uestions of la),assi&nin& the follo)in& errors
I. That the lo)er court erred )hen it did not rule that Republic Act No. 88> is
unconstitutional.
II. That the lo)er court erred )hen it sentenced appellant herein to pa' plaintiff
the su$ of P> as attorne';s fees and the cost thereof.
In support of the alle&ed unconstitutionalit' of Republic Act No. 88>, the 1nion
contented, firstl', that the Act infrin&es on the funda$ental ri&ht to for$ la)ful
associations7 that %the ver' phraseolo&' of said Republic Act 88>, that $e$bership in alabor or&aniation is banned to all those belon&in& to such reli&ious sect prohibitin&
affiliation )ith an' labor or&aniation%, %prohibits all the $e$bers of a &iven reli&ioussect fro$ is unconstitutional for
i$pairin& the obli&ation of contracts in that, )hile the 1nion is obli&ed to co$pl' )ith its
collective bar&ainin& a&ree$ent containin& a %closed shop provision,% the Act relieves the
e$plo'er fro$ its reciprocal obli&ation of cooperatin& in the $aintenance of union$e$bership as a condition of e$plo'$ent7 and that said Act, further$ore, i$pairs the
1nion;s ri&hts as it deprives the union of dues fro$ $e$bers )ho, under the Act, are
relieved fro$ the obli&ation to continue as such $e$bers. 6
Thirdl', the 1nion contended that Republic Act No. 88> discri$inatoril' favors those
reli&ious sects )hich ban their $e$bers fro$
-
7/23/2019 LL1 case1
10/40
reli&ious sects, it leaves no ri&hts or protection to labor or&aniations.8
(ourthl', Republic Act No. 88>, asserted the 1nion, violates the constitutional provision
that %no reli&ious test shall be re?uired for the e!ercise of a civil ri&ht,% in that thelaborer;s e!ercise of his civil ri&ht to , violates the %e?ual protection of
la)s% clause of the Constitution, it bein& a discri$inatel' le&islation, inas$uch as b'e!e$ptin& fro$ the operation of closed shop a&ree$ent the $e$bers of the %I&lesia ni
Cristo%, it has &ranted said $e$bers undue advanta&es over their fello) )or*ers, for
)hile the Act e!e$pts the$ fro$ union obli&ation and liabilit', it nevertheless entitles
the$ at the sa$e ti$e to the en7 12and that unless Republic Act No.
88> is declared unconstitutional, trade unionis$ in this countr' )ould be )iped out ase$plo'ers )ould prefer to hire or e$plo' $e$bers of the I&lesia ni Cristo in order to do
a)a' )ith labor or&aniations. 13
Appellee, assailin& appellant;s ar&u$ents, contended that Republic Act No. 88> does not
violate the ri&ht to for$ la)ful associations, for the ri&ht to
-
7/23/2019 LL1 case1
11/40
diversities of their reli&ious beliefs.% 18
I. Before 5e proceed to the discussion of the first assi&ned error, it is necessar' to
pre$ise that there are so$e thorou&hl' established principles )hich $ust be follo)ed inall cases )here ?uestions of constitutionalit' as obtains in the instant case are involved.
All presu$ptions are indul&ed in favor of constitutionalit'7 one )ho attac*s a statute,
alle&in& unconstitutionalit' $ust prove its invalidit' be'ond a reasonable doubt, that ala) $a' )or* hardship does not render it unconstitutional7 that if an' reasonable basis
$a' be conceived )hich supports the statute, it )ill be upheld, and the challen&er $ust
ne&ate all possible bases7 that the courts are not concerned )ith the )isdo$, provides that e$plo'ees shall have the ri&ht to self:or&aniation and to for$,
-
7/23/2019 LL1 case1
12/40
the sa$e breath, upon the e$plo'ee the dut' to , provides that althou&h it )ould be an unfair labor practice for an e$plo'er %todiscri$inate in re&ard to hire or tenure of e$plo'$ent or an' ter$ or condition of
e$plo'$ent to encoura&e or discoura&e $e$bership in an' labor or&aniation% the
e$plo'er is, ho)ever, not precluded %fro$ $a*in& an a&ree$ent )ith a laboror&aniation to re?uire as a condition of e$plo'$ent $e$bership therein, if such labor
or&aniation is the representative of the e$plo'ees%. B' virtue, therefore, of a closed
shop a&ree$ent, before the enact$ent of Republic Act No. 88>, if an' person, re&ardlessof his reli&ious beliefs, )ishes to be e$plo'ed or to *eep his e$plo'$ent, he $ust
beco$e a $e$ber of the collective bar&ainin& union. 3ence, the ri&ht of said e$plo'ee
not to introduced an e!ception, )hen it added to Section "a# "# of the Industrial Peace Act the
follo)in& proviso %but such a&ree$ent shall not cover $e$bers of an' reli&ious sects
)hich prohibit affiliation of their $e$bers in an' such labor or&aniation%. Republic Act
No. 88> $erel' e!cludes ipso ure fro$ the application and covera&e of the closed shopa&ree$ent the e$plo'ees belon&in& to an' reli&ious sects )hich prohibit affiliation of
their $e$bers )ith an' labor or&aniation. 5hat the e!ception provides, therefore, is that$e$bers of said reli&ious sects cannot be co$pelled or coerced to
-
7/23/2019 LL1 case1
13/40
the union )as re?uired as a condition for e$plo'$ent for all per$anent e$plo'ees
)or*ers%. This a&ree$ent )as alread' in e!istence at the ti$e Republic Act No. 88>
)as enacted on @une , -L, and it cannot, therefore, be dee$ed to have beenincorporated into the a&ree$ent. But b' reason of this a$end$ent, Appellee, as )ell as
others si$ilarl' situated, could no lon&er be dis$issed fro$ his
-
7/23/2019 LL1 case1
14/40
In several occasions this Court declared that the prohibition a&ainst i$pairin& the
obli&ations of contracts has no application to statutes relatin& to public sub Its purpose)as to insure freedo$ of belief and reli&ion, and to pro$ote the &eneral )elfare b'
preventin& discri$ination a&ainst those $e$bers of reli&ious sects )hich prohibit their
$e$bers fro$
-
7/23/2019 LL1 case1
15/40
or&aniation. /i*e)ise, the la) )ould not co$$end the deprivation of their
ri&ht to )or* and pursue a $odest $eans of livelihood, )ithout in an' $anner
violatin& their reli&ious faith andFor belief. 32
It cannot be denied, further$ore, that the $eans adopted b' the Act to achieve that
purpose D e!e$ptin& the $e$bers of said reli&ious sects fro$ covera&e of unionsecurit' a&ree$ents D is reasonable.
It $a' not be a$iss to point out here that the free e!ercise of reli&ious profession orbelief is superior to contract ri&hts. In case of conflict, the latter $ust, therefore, 'ield to
the for$er. The Supre$e Court of the 1nited States has also declared on several
occasions that the ri&hts in the (irst A$end$ent, )hich include freedo$ of reli&ion,en
-
7/23/2019 LL1 case1
16/40
)ould be favorable to a reli&ion or sect. It has li*e)ise been held that the statute, in order
to )ithstand the strictures of constitutional prohibition, $ust have a secular le&islative
purpose and a pri$ar' effect that neither advances nor inhibits reli&ion. 0Assessed b'these criteria, Republic Act No. 88> cannot be said to violate the constitutional
inhibition of the %no:establish$ent% "of reli&ion# clause of the Constitution.
The purpose of Republic Act No. 88> is secular, )orldl', and te$poral, not spiritual or
reli&ious or hol' and eternal. It )as intended to serve the secular purpose of advancin&the constitutional ri&ht to the free e!ercise of reli&ion, b' avertin& that certain persons be
refused )or*, or be dis$issed fro$ )or*, or be dispossessed of their ri&ht to )or* and of
bein& i$peded to pursue a $odest $eans of livelihood, b' reason of union securit'a&ree$ents. To help its citiens to find &ainful e$plo'$ent )hereb' the' can $a*e a
livin& to support the$selves and their fa$ilies is a valid ob
-
7/23/2019 LL1 case1
17/40
reli&ious sects, it leaves no ri&ht to, and is silent as to the protection of, labor
or&aniations. The purpose of Republic Act No. 88> )as not to &rant ri&hts to labor
unions. The ri&hts of labor unions are a$pl' provided for in Republic Act No. J> andthe ne) /abor Code. As to the la$ented silence of the Act re&ardin& the ri&hts and
protection of labor unions, suffice it to sa', first, that the validit' of a statute is
deter$ined b' its provisions, not b' its silence
7 and, second, the fact that the la) $a')or* hardship does not render it unconstitutional. 6
It )ould not be a$iss to state, re&ardin& this $atter, that to co$pel persons to Constitution )hich forbids the denial to an' person of the e?ual protection of the la)s. 50
The &uarant' of e?ual protection of the la)s is not a &uarant' of e?ualit' in the
-
7/23/2019 LL1 case1
18/40
application of the la)s upon all citiens of the state. It is not, therefore, a re?uire$ent, in
order to avoid the constitutional prohibition a&ainst ine?ualit', that ever' $an, )o$an
and child should be affected ali*e b' a statute. E?ualit' of operation of statutes does not$ean indiscri$inate operation on persons $erel' as such, but on persons accordin& to the
circu$stances surroundin& the$. It &uarantees e?ualit', not identit' of ri&hts. The
Constitution does not re?uire that thin&s )hich are different in fact be treated in la) asthou&h the' )ere the sa$e. The e?ual protection clause does not forbid discri$ination as
to thin&s that are different. 51It does not prohibit le&islation )hich is li$ited either in the
ob satisfies the afore$entioned re?uire$ents. The
Act classifies e$plo'ees and )or*ers, as to the effect and covera&e of union shopsecurit' a&ree$ents, into those )ho b' reason of their reli&ious beliefs and convictions
cannot si&n up )ith a labor union, and those )hose reli&ion does not prohibit
$e$bership in labor unions. Tile classification rests on real or substantial, not $erel'i$a&inar' or )hi$sical, distinctions. There is such real distinction in the beliefs, feelin&s
and senti$ents of e$plo'ees. E$plo'ees do not believe in the sa$e reli&ious faith and
different reli&ions differ in their do&$as and cannons. Reli&ious beliefs, $anifestationsand practices, thou&h the' are found in all places, and in all ti$es, ta*e so $an' varied
for$s as to be al$ost be'ond i$a&ination. There are $an' vie)s that co$prise the broad
spectru$ of reli&ious beliefs a$on& the people. There are diverse $anners in )hich
beliefs, e?uall' para$ount in the lives of their possessors, $a' be articulated. Toda' thecountr' is far $ore hetero&enous in reli&ion than before, differences in reli&ion do e!ist,
and these differences are i$portant and should not be i&nored.
-
7/23/2019 LL1 case1
19/40
Even fro$ the ph'cholo&ical point of vie), the classification is based on real and
i$portant differences. Reli&ious beliefs are not $ere beliefs, $ere ideas e!istin& onl' in
the $ind, for the' carr' )ith the$ practical conse?uences and are the $otives of certainrules. of hu$an conduct and the , therefore, rests on substantial distinctions.
The classification introduced b' said Act is also &er$ane to its purpose. The purpose of
the la) is precisel' to avoid those )ho cannot, because of their reli&ious belief,
-
7/23/2019 LL1 case1
20/40
)henever it is apparent fro$ the scope of the la) that its ob
-
7/23/2019 LL1 case1
21/40
anticipate proble$s 5e cannot for attorne';s feesdirectl' contravenes Section = of Republic Act No. J>, for the instant action involves
an industrial dispute )herein the 1nion )as a part', and said 1nion $erel' acted in the
e!ercise of its ri&hts under the union shop provision of its e!istin& collective bar&ainin&contract )ith the Co$pan'7 that said order also contravenes Article == of the Civil
Code7 that, further$ore, Appellee )as never actuall' dis$issed b' the defendant
Co$pan' and did not therefore suffer an' da$a&e at all . 62
In refutin& appellant 1nion;s ar&u$ents, Appellee clai$ed that in the instant case there
)as reall' no industrial dispute involved in the atte$pt to co$pel Appellee to $aintain its$e$bership in the union under pain of dis$issal, and that the 1nion, b' its act, inflicted
intentional har$ on Appellee7 that since Appellee )as co$pelled to institute an action toprotect his ri&ht to )or*, appellant could le&all' be ordered to pa' attorne';s fees under
Articles J and == of the Civil Code. 63
The second para&raph of Section = of Republic Act No. J> )hich is relied upon b'
appellant provides that
No suit, action or other proceedin&s shall be $aintainable in an' court a&ainst a
labor or&aniation or an' officer or $e$ber thereof for an' act done b' or on
behalf of such or&aniation in furt*erance of an in$ustrial $ispute to )hich it isa part', on the &round onl' that such act induces so$e other person to brea* acontract of e$plo'$ent or that it is in restraint of trade or interferes )ith the
trade, business or e$plo'$ent of so$e other person or )ith the ri&ht of so$e
other person to dispose of his capital or labor. "E$phasis supplied#
That there )as a labor dispute in the instant case cannot be disputed for appellant sou&htthe dischar&e of respondent b' virtue of the closed shop a&ree$ent and under Section =
" a ?uestion involvin& tenure of e$plo'$ent is included in the
ter$ %labor dispute%. 6The dischar&e or the act of see*in& it is the labor dispute itself. Itbein& the labor dispute itself, that ver' sa$e act of the 1nion in as*in& the e$plo'er to
dis$iss Appellee cannot be %an act done ... in furt*erance of an in$ustrial $ispute.The
$ere fact that appellant is a labor union does not necessaril' $ean that all its acts are infurtherance of an industrial dispute. 65Appellant 1nion, therefore, cannot invo*e in its
favor Section = of Republic Act No. J>. This case is not intert)ined )ith an' unfair
labor practice case e!istin& at the ti$e )hen Appellee filed his co$plaint before thelo)er court.
Neither does Article == of the Civil Code, invo*ed b' the 1nion, serve as its shield.
-
7/23/2019 LL1 case1
22/40
The article provides that attorne';s fees and e!penses of liti&ation $a' be a)arded %)hen
the defendant;s act or o$ission has co$pelled the plaintiff ... to incur e/penses to protect
*is interest%7 and %in an' other case )here the court dee$s it ,
of the Court of (irst Instance of Manila, in its Civil Case No. >-, appealed fro$ isaffir$ed, )ith costs a&ainst appellant 1nion. It is so ordered.
Ma0alintal, C.J, Castro, 1ee*an0ee, %arre$o, Ma0asiar, Antonio, 2s)uerra, Muoz
"al3a an$ A'uino, JJ., concur.
9::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::!
Se-#'e O-/n/on$
FERNAN"O,J, concurrin&
The decision arrived at unani$ousl' b' this Court that Republic Act No. 88> is free
fro$ the constitutional infir$ities i$puted to it )as de$onstrated in a $anner )ellni&hconclusive in the learned, scholarl', and co$prehensive opinion so t'pical of the efforts
of theponente, @ustice Galdivar. /i*e the rest of $' brethren, I concur full'. Considerin&
$oreover, the detailed attention paid to each and ever' ob
-
7/23/2019 LL1 case1
23/40
$atter. There is no re?uire$ent as to its confor$it' to )hat has found acceptance. It
suffices that for hi$ such a concept holds undisputed s)a'. That is a reco&nition of $an;s
freedo$. That for hi$ is one of the )a's of self: realiation. It )ould be to disre&ard thedi&nit' that attaches to ever' hu$an bein& to deprive hi$ of such an attribute. The %fi!ed
star on our constitutional constellation,% to borro) the felicitous phrase of @ustice
@ac*son, is that no official, not e!cludin& the hi&hest, has it in his po)er to prescribe )hatshall be orthodo! in $atters of conscience D or to $undane affairs, for that $atter.
Gerona v. (ecretar# of 2$ucation spea*s si$ilarl'. In the lan&ua&e of its ponente,
@ustice Monte$a'or %The real$ of belief and creed is infinite and li$itless bounded onl'
b' one;s i$a&ination and thou&ht. So is the freedo$ of belief, includin& reli&ious belief,li$itless and )ithout bounds. ne $a' believe in $ost an'thin&, ho)ever stran&e,
biarre and unreasonable the sa$e $a' appear to others, even heretical )hen )ei&hed in
the scales of orthodo!' or doctrinal standards.% 5 There )as this ?ualification thou&h%But bet)een the freedo$ of belief and the e!ercise of said belief, there is ?uite a stretch
of road to travel. If the e!ercise of said reli&ious belief clashes )ith the established
institutions of societ' and )ith the la), then the for$er $ust 'ield and &ive )a' to thelatter. The 0overn$ent steps in and either restrains said e!ercise or even prosecutes the
one e!ercisin& it.% It )as on that basis that the dail' co$pulsor' fla& cere$on' in
accordance )ith a statute6)as found free fro$ the constitutional ob
-
7/23/2019 LL1 case1
24/40
un?uestionabl' be $ade b' $an' of our conscientious and la):abidin& citiens. The
essence of reli&ion is belief in a relation to 0od involvin& duties superior to those arisin&
fro$ an' hu$an relation.% 10The A$erican Chief @ustice spo*e in dissent, it is true, but)ith hi$ in a&ree$ent )ere three of the fore$ost
-
7/23/2019 LL1 case1
25/40
Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT
Manila
T3IR+ +I2ISIN
G.R. No. 85269 Ju( 28, 1989
SOCIAL SECURIT< S
-
7/23/2019 LL1 case1
26/40
co$plaint for da$a&es )ith a pra'er for a )rit of preli$inar' inJJ for bein& $oot and acade$ic. Petitioners; $otion to recall the decision of the
Court of Appeals )as also denied in vie) of this Court;s denial of the $otion forreconsideration HRollo, pp. : 8. 3ence, the instant petition to revie) the decision of
the Court of Appeals HRollo, pp. =:8J.
1pon $otion of the SSS on (ebruar' L,--, the Court issued a te$porar' restrainin&
order en:>=.
-
7/23/2019 LL1 case1
27/40
The Court, ta*in& the co$$ent as ans)er, and notin& the repl' and supple$ental repl'
filed b' petitioners, considered the issues
-
7/23/2019 LL1 case1
28/40
not be denied to &overn$ent e$plo'ees% HArt. I9"B#, Sec. ="l# and ">#. Parentheticall',
the Bill of Ri&hts also provides that %Htlhe ri&ht of the people, includin& those e$plo'ed
in the public and private sectors, to for$ unions, associations, or societies for purposesnot contrar' to la) shall not abrid&ed% HArt. III, Sec. . Thus, )hile there is no ?uestion
that the Constitution reco&nies the ri&ht of &overn$ent e$plo'ees to or&anie, it is
silent as to )hether such reco&nition also includes the ri&ht to stri*e.
Resort to the intent of the fra$ers of the or&anic la) beco$es helpful in understandin&the $eanin& of these provisions. A readin& of the proceedin&s of the Constitutional
Co$$ission that drafted the -J Constitution )ould sho) that in reco&niin& the ri&ht
of &overn$ent e$plo'ees to or&anie, the co$$issioners intended to li$it the ri&ht tothe for$ation of unions or associations onl', )ithout includin& the ri&ht to stri*e.
Thus, Co$$issioner Eulo&io R. /eru$, one of the sponsors of the provision that %Htlhe
ri&ht to self:or&aniation shall not be denied to &overn$ent e$plo'ees% HArt. I9"B#, Sec.
=">#, in ans)er to the apprehensions e!pressed b' Co$$issioner A$brosio B. Padilla,
2ice:President of the Co$$ission, e!plained
MR. /ER1M. I thin* )hat I )ill tr' to sa' )ill not ta*e that lon&. 5hen )e
proposed this a$end$ent providin& for self:or&aniation of &overn$ent
e$plo'ees, it does not $ean that because the' have the ri&ht to or&anie, the'also have the ri&ht to stri*e. That is a different $atter. 5e are onl' tal*in& about
or&aniin&, unitin& as a union. 5ith re&ard to the ri&ht to stri*e, ever'one )ill
re$e$ber that in the Bill of Ri&hts, there is a provision that the ri&ht to for$associations or societies )hose purpose is not contrar' to la) shall not be
abrid&ed. No) then, if the purpose of the state is to prohibit the stri*es co$in&
fro$ e$plo'ees e!ercisin& &overn$ent functions, that could be done because
the $o$ent that is prohibited, then the union )hich )ill &o on stri*e )ill be anille&al union. And that provision is carried in Republic Act J>. In Republic Act
J>, )or*ers, includin& those fro$ the &overn$ent:o)ned and controlled, areallo)ed to or&anie but the' are prohibited fro$ stri*in&. So, the fear of our
honorable 2ice: President is unfounded. It does not $ean that because )e
approve this resolution, it carries )ith it the ri&ht to stri*e. That is a different
$atter. As a $atter of fact, that sub
-
7/23/2019 LL1 case1
29/40
.Sec. . "ro*i+ition A)ainst (tri0es in t*e Govern3ent. 7 The ter$s and
conditions of e$plo'$ent in the 0overn$ent, includin& an' political
subdivision or instru$entalit' thereof, are &overned b' la) and it is declared tobe the polic' of this Act that e$plo'ees therein shall not stri*e for the purpose of
securin& chan&es or $odification in their ter$s and conditions of e$plo'$ent.
Such e$plo'ees $a' belon& to an' labor or&aniation )hich does not i$posethe obli&ation to stri*e or to
-
7/23/2019 LL1 case1
30/40
SSS is one such &overn$ent:controlled corporation )ith an ori&inal charter, havin& been
created under R.A. No. L, its e$plo'ees are part of the civil service HNASEC v.
N/RC, 0.R. Nos. L-J K J=->, Nove$ber =,- and are covered b' the CivilService Co$$ission;s $e$orandu$ prohibitin& stri*es. This bein& the case, the stri*e
sta&ed b' the e$plo'ees of the SSS )as ille&al.
The state$ent of the Court in Alliance of Govern3ent 4or0ers v. Minister of La+or an$
23plo#3ent H0.R. No. L8, Au&ust 8, -8, = SCRA is relevant as it furnishesthe rationale for distin&uishin& bet)een )or*ers in the private sector and &overn$ent
e$plo'ees )ith re&ard to the ri&ht to stri*e
The &eneral rule in the past and up to the present is that ;the ter$s and conditionsof e$plo'$ent in the 0overn$ent, includin& an' political subdivision or
instru$entalit' thereof are &overned b' la)% "Section , the Industrial Peace
Act, R.A. No. J>, as a$ended and Article =JJ, the /abor Code, P.+. No. =,
as a$ended#. (ince t*e ter3s an$ con$itions of )overn3ent e3plo#3ent are
fi/e$ +# law, )overn3ent wor0ers cannot use t*e sa3e weapons e3plo#e$ +#wor0ers in t*e private sector to secure concessions fro3 t*eir e3plo#ers. The
principle behind labor unionis$ in private industr' is that industrial peace cannotbe secured throu&h co$pulsion b' la). Relations bet)een private e$plo'ers and
their e$plo'ees rest on an essentiall' voluntar' basis. Sub
-
7/23/2019 LL1 case1
31/40
rule to allo) ne&otiation )here the ter$s and conditions of e$plo'$ent involved are not
a$on& those fi!ed b' la). Thus
.SECTIN 8. Ter$s and conditions of e$plo'$ent or i$prove$ents thereof,e!cept those that are fi!ed b' la), $a' be the sub
-
7/23/2019 LL1 case1
32/40
This bein& the case, the Re&ional Trial Court )as not precluded, in the e!ercise of its
&eneral
-
7/23/2019 LL1 case1
33/40
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
(IRST +I2ISIN
G.R. No. L725003 O%'o*e& 23, 1981
LI:A
-
7/23/2019 LL1 case1
34/40
P,>=.= )ith interest thereon at the le&al rate fro$ the co$$ence$ent of this action
until full' paid, P,. as attorne';s fees and costs.
The case co$$enced )hen /i)a')a' Publications, Inc. brou&ht an action in the C(I:Manila a&ainst Per$anent Concrete 5or*ers 1nion, et al. for the issuance of a )rit of
preli$inar' in
-
7/23/2019 LL1 case1
35/40
"a# threatenin& and inti$idatin& plaintiff;s e!ecutive officers and their representatives,
)ho are &oin& to its bode&a as )ell as its e$plo'ees )ho are &ettin& ne)sprint fro$ it7
"b# orderin& the defendants and their representatives not to bloc*ade andFor pic*et theco$pound and the &ate of the plaintiff7
"c# orderin& the defendants not to stop, prohibit, $olest and interfere )ith the free
passa&e of the plaintiff in &oin& in and out of the bode&a.
+efendant union $oved to dis$iss the co$plaint on the follo)in& &rounds
. That this case arose out of a labor dispute involvin& unfair labor practices and,therefore, the Court of (irst Instance )here this action )as brou&ht has no L:In
-
7/23/2019 LL1 case1
36/40
e$plo'er and e$plo'ee and that peaceful pic*etin& is an e!tension of the freedo$ of
speech &uaranteed b' the Constitution, 3a funda$ental ri&ht &ranted to labor )hich
cannot be en )hich declared per$anent the )rit of preli$inar'
in and forth)ith, defendants filed the notice of
appeal on @ul' =L, -L>.
n ctober =,-L>, /i)a')a' Publications, Inc. filed )ith the Supre$e Court apetition pra'in& that a )rit of attach$ent be issued on an' su$ of $one' )hich is o)in&
fro$ the co$pan' to the union and to other defendants to be used to satisf' the
-
7/23/2019 LL1 case1
37/40
labor practices co$$itted b' the for$er.
The first ?uestion that stri*es 1s to be of deter$inative si&nificance is )hether or not this
case involves or has arisen out of a labor dispute. If it does, then )ith certaint', section -of Republic Act J>, the %Industrial Peace Act%, )ould appl'. If it does not, then the
Rules of Court )ill &overn the issuance of the )rit of preli$inar' in
-
7/23/2019 LL1 case1
38/40
the pic*etin& union or constitute an invasion of their ri&hts. In one case decided
b' this Court, )e upheld a trial court;s in
-
7/23/2019 LL1 case1
39/40
for if it is sho)n to its satisfaction that the labor dispute arose out of unfair labor practices
co$$itted b' an' of the parties. The parties )ould still have to institute the proper action
in the Court of Industrial Relations, and there as* for a te$porar' restrainin& order undersec. - "d# of the Industrial peace Act. %
5e cannot a&ree that the above rules cited b' the appellants are controllin& in the instantcase for as 5e said in"*il. Association of Free La+or 8nions 9"AFL8, et at. vs. 1an, , that %)ith re&ard to activities that $a' be enL=, the lessor shall not be obli&ed to ans)er for the $ere
fact of a trespass "perturbacion de $ero hecho# $ade b' a third person in the use of the
estate leased but the lessee sha& have a direct action a&ainst the trespasser. The instantcase fa&s s?uarel' under the provisions of Article LL of the Ne) Civil Code )hich
provides as follo)s
Art. LL. The lessor is not obli&ed to ans)er for a $ere act of trespass )hich a
third person $a' cause on the use of the thin& leased7 but the lessee shall have adirect action a&ainst the intruder.
There is a $ere act of trespass )hen the third person clai$s no ri&ht )hatever.
The Gol$steindoctrine had been reiterated in -e#es vs. Calte/ 9"*il. 6nc., Phil. L>7
Lo C*in), et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Phil. L7Afesa vs. A#ala # Cia- Phil.=-=7 5$a. $e 5illaruel et al. vs. Manila Motor Co., 6nc., et al. Phil. -=L7!eirs of %.A.
-
7/23/2019 LL1 case1
40/40
Cru3+, et al. vs. -o$ri)uez,> Phil. 8-.
The obli&ation of the lessor under Art. L>, Ne) Civil Code, to $aintain the lessee in
the peaceful and ade?uate en
