Nagkakaisahang Manggagawa Sa Cuizon Hotel v. Libron
Nagkakaisahang Manggagawa Sa Cuizon Hotel v. Libron
Nagkakaisahang Manggagawa Sa Cuizon Hotel v. Libron
SYLLABUS
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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
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
Footnotes
1. Clarificatory Order, Annex C to Petition, 1.
8. Ibid, 5-6.
9. Answer, 3.
10. Batas Pambansa Blg. 227, Section 6 (1982).