Case Digest: Bisig Ng Manggagawa sa Concrete Aggregates v. NLRC, G.R. No. 105090, September 16 1983
- Bisig Ng Manggagawa sa Concrete Aggregates held a strike protesting alleged unfair labor practices by the private respondent Concrete Aggregates Corporation at multiple locations.
- The company petitioned the NLRC for an injunction to stop the strike, citing illegal acts and obstruction of business operations.
- The union claimed it wasn't provided a copy of the petition and wasn't properly notified of the hearings.
- NLRC: Issued a temporary restraining order against the union.
- After hearings, NLRC granted a preliminary injunction against the union.
In the case at bar, the records will show that the respondent NLRC failed to comply with the letter and spirit of Article 218 (e), (4) and (5) of the Labor Code in issuing its Order of May 5, 1992.
"ART. 218. Powers of the Commission. — The Commission shall have the power and authority:
x x x
(e) To enjoin or restrain any actual or threatened commission of any or all prohibited or unlawful acts or to require the performance of a particular act in any labor dispute which, if not restrained or performed forthwith, may cause grave or irreparable damage to any party or render ineffectual any decision in favor of such party: Provided, That no temporary or permanent injunction in any case involving or growing out of a labor dispute as defined in this Code shall be issued except after hearing the testimony of witnesses, with opportunity for cross-examination, in support of the allegations of a complaint made under oath, and testimony in opposition thereto, if offered, and only after a finding of fact by the commission, to the effect:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"(1) That prohibited or unlawful acts have been threatened and will be committed and will be continued unless restrained but no injunction or temporary restraining order shall be issued on account of any threat, prohibited or unlawful act, except against the person or persons, association or organization making the threat or committing the prohibited or unlawful act or actually authorizing or ratifying the same after actual knowledge thereof;
"(2) That substantial and irreparable injury to complainants property will follow;
"(3) That as to each item of relief to be granted, greater injury will be inflicted upon complainant by the denial of relief than will be inflicted upon defendants by the granting of relief;
"(4) That complainant has no adequate remedy at law; and
"(5) That the public officers charged with the duty to protect complainants property are unable or unwilling to furnish adequate protection.
"Such 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 Executive and other public officials of the province or city within which the unlawful have been threatened or committed charged with the duty to protect complainant’s property: . . ."
To be sure, the issuance of an ex parte temporary restraining order in a labor dispute is not per se prohibited. Its issuance, however, should be characterized by care and caution for the law requires that it be clearly justified by considerations of extreme necessity, i.e., when the commission of unlawful acts is causing substantial and irreparable injury to company properties and the company is, for the moment, bereft of an adequate remedy at law. This is as it ought to be, for imprudently issued temporary restraining orders can break the back of employees engaged in a legal strike. Often times, they unduly tilt the balance of a labor warfare in favor of capital. When that happens, the deleterious effects of a wrongfully issued, ex parte temporary restraining order on the rights of striking employees can no longer be repaired for they defy simple monetization. Moreover, experience shows that ex parte applications for restraining orders are often based on fabricated facts and concealed truths. A more becoming sense of fairness, therefore, demands that such ex parte applications should be more minutely examined by hearing officers, lest, our constitutional policy of protecting labor becomes nothing but a synthetic shibboleth. The immediate need to hear and resolve these ex parte applications does not provide any excuse to lower our vigilance in protecting labor against the issuance of indiscriminate injunctions. Stated otherwise, it behooves hearing officers receiving evidence in support of ex parte injunctions against employees in strike to take a more active stance in seeing to it that their right to social justice is in no way violated despite their absence. This equalizing stance was not taken in the case at bar by the public respondents.
Comments
Post a Comment