Nagkakaisahang Manggagawa Sa Cuizon Hotel v. Libron

EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-64336. August 31, 1983.]
NAGKAHIUSANG MANGGAGAWA SA CUISON HOTEL-

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR (NMCH-NFL) , petitioner,
vs. THE HONORABLE LABOR ARBITER JOSE O. LIBRON and
CUISON HOTEL CORPORATION, respondents.
Jose C. Espinas for petitioner.

Militar & Associates for private respondent.
SYLLABUS
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; PROTECTION TO LABOR; LABOR

DISPUTES; RIGHT OF PARTIES TO APPEAL FROM DECISIONS OF THE LABOR
ARBITER. — The order of the labor arbiter certainly cannot be declared final
and executory upon the mere issuance thereof. That is manisfestly
contravention of the law. Article 223 of the Labor Gone is quite explicit on
the matter, a period of ten days being granted either or both to the parties
involved from receipt of any order to appeal to the National Labor Relations
Commission.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; STRIKES PICKETING, A PART OF THE FREEDOM OF
SPEECH GUARANTEE. — The wholesale condemnation of peaceful picketing
is clearly bereft of support in law. As pointed out in a very recent decision
decided this year, Phil. Assn. of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) v. CFI of Rizal, L-
49580, Jan. 17, 1983: "It need not be stress that peaceful picketing is
embraced in freedom of expression. As emphatically declared in Philippine
Commercial and Industrial Bank v. Philnabank Employees' Association: From
the time of Mortera v. Court of Industrial Relations, a 1947 decision, this
Court has been committed to the view that peaceful picketing is Part of the
freedom of speech guarantee of the Constitution.'"
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ACTS OF ILLEGALITY COMMITTED IN THE
COURSE THEREOF NOT COUNTENANCED. — The peaceful picketing
authorized . certainly Countenance acts of illegality. The interim Batasang
Pambansa has spoken on the subject: thus: "(e) No person engage in
Picketing shall commit any act of violence, coercion or intimidation or
obstruct the free egress from the employer from the employer's premises for
lawful Purpose or obstruct public thoroughfares.
4. CERTIORARI; DISMISSAL THEREOF WHEN THE CASE HAS BECOME
MOOT AND ACADEMIC. — In view of the settlement of the labor dispute
between the parties, and the workers are back to work, the case need a no
further decision and is dismissed for being moot and academic.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

DECISION
FERNANDO, J : p
The principal basis of this certiorari proceeding filed on June 25, 1983
arose from a clarificatory order of respondent labor arbiter in response to a
motion of private respondent "seeking to be informed as to the full meaning
and legal consequences resulting from the declaration of a strike as illegal
such as what is embodied" 1 in his decision dated June 10, 1983. Its
disposition portion reads: "[Wherefore, premises considered], the strike
staged on April 15, 1983 should be, as it is hereby, declared illegal, and,
therefore, the respondent union and its members are permanently enjoined
from staging such illegal strike; ordering and declaring, pursuant to Article
265, par. (a) of the Labor Code, as amended, all the union officers led by
Carlito Eleazar, Marciano Macaraya and Cesar Yap to have lost their
employment status for participating in an illegal strike and committing
unlawful acts during the strike; and ordering the respondent union to pay the
petitioner the amount of Pesos Three Hundred Thirty Nine Thousand
(P339,000.00), representing losses in income suffered during the illegal
strike in the concept of actual damage." 2 The clarificatory order continues:
"The consequences resulting from the declaration of a strike as illegal, which
is final and immediately executory, carries with it sanctions on the
immediate incidents thereto such as picketing, obstruction of ingress and
egress, the banners and streamers being hung in the premises and
makeshifts built within the immediate vicinity of the establishment struck.
Once the strikers are permanently enjoined from staging the illegal strike,
the picketing staged should also be simultaneously lifted, the obstruction of
ingress and egress removed and the makeshifts taken out. In other words,
the injunction of the illegal strike and the incidents thereto is self-executing
and it behooves upon the party concerned to seek, if necessary, the
assistance of the law enforcers to enforce the same." 3 Its last paragraph
reads: "The other matters in the aforequoted dispositive portion of our
decision, that of termination of the employment status of union officers and
the award of damages, are also final and executory, unless appealed to the
Commission within the reglementary period." 4 Hence this petition. Cdpr
Three days later, on June 28, 1983, this Court issued a resolution of the
following tenor: "The Court after considering the pleadings filed and
deliberating on the issues raised in this petition for certiorari with prayer for
a temporary restraining order filed on June 25, 1983, Resolved to require the
respondents to file an [Answer], not a motion to dismiss, within ten (10) days
from notice. The Court further Resolved to [Issue] a [Temporary Restraining
Order], enjoining respondent Labor Arbiter or any person or persons acting
for and in his behalf from proceeding with the execution and or enforcement
of his questioned decision dated June 13, 1983 as well as his orders dated
June 15 and 17, 1983 in Case No. NLRC 1121-LRXI-83, effective immediately
and until further orders from his Court." 5
The above restraining order had to be issued because as contended in
the petition, the order of the labor arbiter certainly cannot be declared final
and executory upon the mere issuance thereof. That is manifestly in
contravention of the law. Article 223 of the Labor Code is quite explicit on
the matter, a period of 10 days being granted either or both to the parties
involved from receipt of any order to appeal to the National Labor Relations
Commission. 6
Moreover, the wholesale condemnation of peaceful picketing is likewise
clearly bereft of support in law. As pointed out in a very recent decision
decided this year, Phil. Assn. of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) v. CFI of Rizal: 7
"It need not be stressed that peaceful picketing is embraced in freedom of
expression. As emphatically declared in Philippine Commercial & Industrial
Bank v. Philnabank Employees' Association: 'From the time of Mortera v.
Court of Industrial Relations, a 1947 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 Union v. Gomez. In that case, the Court characterized the
orders complained of as being 'fatally defective, suffering as it did from the
infirmity that peaceful picketing was enjoined.' It is in that sense that
Presidential Decree No. 849 was a step in the right direction for the status of
picketing was again accorded due recognition." 8
In the answer, reference was made to the alleged commission of acts
of violence against non-striking employees and even against the eighty-year
old "sickly and paralytic President" 9 of respondent. It is to be understood, of
course, that the peaceful picketing authorized cannot certainly countenance
acts of illegality. The interim Batasang Pambansa has spoken on the subject
thus: "(e) No person engaged in picketing shall commit any act of violence,
coercion or intimidation or obstruct the free ingress to or egress from the
employer's premises for lawful purposes, or obstruct public thoroughfares."
10
At any rate, the case needs no further discussion as on August 1-7,

1983, the following manifestation and motion to dismiss was filed by
petitioner through counsel: "1. The labor dispute between the parties which
resulted in the present case has been settled on August 15, 1983, and the
workers are back to their work. 2. In view thereof, the above-entitled case
has become moot and academic." 11
WHEREFORE, the case is dismissed for being moot and academic.
Teehankee, Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr ., Melencio-Herrera, Plana,
Escolin, Vasquez, Relova and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ ., concur.
Guerrero, J ., took no part.
Abad Santos and De Castro, JJ ., are on leave.
Footnotes
1. Clarificatory Order, Annex C to Petition, 1.
2. Decision, Annex A to Petition, 12.

3. Clarificatory Order, Annex C to Petition, 1-2.
4. Ibid, 2.
5. Resolution of this Court dated June 28, 1983.

6. Article 223, insofar as pertinent, reads as follows: "ART. 223. Appeal. —
Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiters or compulsory arbitrations
are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both of
the parties within ten (10) days from receipt of such awards, orders, or
decisions. Such appeal may be entertained only on any of the following
grounds: (a) If there is a prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion on the
part of the Labor Arbiter or compulsory arbitrator; (b) If the decision, order, or
award was secured through fraud or coercion, including graft and corruption;
(c) If made purely on questions of law; and (d) If serious errors in the findings
of facts are raised which would cause grave or irreparable damage or injury
to the appellant."
7. L-49580, January 17, 1983, 120 SCRA 1.
8. Ibid, 5-6.
9. Answer, 3.
10. Batas Pambansa Blg. 227, Section 6 (1982).
11. Manifestation and Motion to Dismiss, 1.

Nagkakaisahang Manggagawa Sa Cuizon Hotel v. Libron

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nagkakaisahang Manggagawa Sa Cuizon Hotel v. Libron

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nagkakaisahang Manggagawa Sa Cuizon Hotel v. Libron

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-64336. August 31, 1983.]

NAGKAHIUSANG MANGGAGAWA SA CUISON HOTEL-

Jose C. Espinas for petitioner.

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; PROTECTION TO LABOR; LABOR

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

At any rate, the case needs no further discussion as on August 1-7,

2. Decision, Annex A to Petition, 12.

5. Resolution of this Court dated June 28, 1983.

11. Manifestation and Motion to Dismiss, 1.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

You might also like