G.R. No. L-49580 - JANUARY 1983 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-49580January 17, 1983 Philipine Association of Free Labor Unions vs. Court of First Instance of Rizal G.R. No. L-55130January 17, 1983 Pedro Santos to vs. Ernani Cruz-Paño G.R. No. L-56591January 17, 1983 MA. Lourdes T. Cruz vs. Minister of Labor and Employment G.R. No. L-56751January 17, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Guillermo L. Oliverio G.R. No. L-57173January 17, 1983 Purificacion V. Advento vs. Priscilla C. Mijares G.R. No. L-58006January 17, 1983 Maximiano Tuason vs. Santiago Ranada, Jr. G.R. No. L-61153January 17, 1983 Trade Unions of the Phils. vs. Cresenciano B. Trajano G.R. No. L-61247January 17, 1983 Roman Peñaflor vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. L-61304January 17, 1983 Leticia G. Acuña vs. Herminigildo C. Cruz G.R. No. L-61498January 17, 1983 Demetrio G. Villa vs. Federico A. Llanes, Jr. G.R. No. L-32905January 21, 1983 International Harvester Macleod, Inc. vs. Ago Timber Corp. G.R. No. L-36098January 21, 1983 Ortigas & Co. Limited Partnership vs. Jose B. Herrera G.R. No. L-40757January 24, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Ricarte Macariola G.R. No. L-28360January 27, 1983 C & C Commercial Corp. vs. Antonio C. Menor G.R. No. L-28581January 27, 1983 Soledad O. San agustin vs. Carolina Orozco G.R. No. L-29594January 27, 1983 Bartolome Claridad vs. Arturo B. Santos G.R. No. L-29725January 27, 1983 Republic of the Philippines vs. Cfi, Negros Occidental G.R. No. L-32271January 27, 1983 Marcial Costin vs. Lope C. Quimbo G.R. No. L-32762January 27, 1983 Cristina Penullar vs. Philippine National Bank G.R. No. L-34529January 27, 1983 Maximo Marcia vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-34906January 27, 1983 Republic of the Philippines vs. Silvestre Br. Bello G.R. No. L-35778January 27, 1983 Republic of the Phils. vs. Abraham P. Vera G.R. No. L-35780January 27, 1983 Republic of the Philippines vs. Numeriano G. Estenzo G.R. No. L-36731January 27, 1983 Vicente Godinez. vs. Fong Pak Luen. G.R. No. L-38348January 27, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto Onavia G.R. No. L-39806January 27, 1983 Luis Ridad vs. Filipinas Investment and Finance Corp. G.R. No. L-43473January 27, 1983 Hermenegildo Enriquez vs. Remigio E. Zari G.R. No. L-45396January 27, 1983 Johnny Bustillos vs. Amado Inciong G.R. No. L-48612January 27, 1983 Cresencio Espejo vs. Martino Malate G.R. No. L-50276January 27, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Michael J. Butler G.R. No. L-56261January 27, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo M. Manimtim G.R. No. L-59068January 27, 1983 Jose Mari Eulalio C. Lozada vs. Commision on Elections G.R. No. L-62037January 27, 1983 United Cmc Textile Workers Union vs. Blas F. Ople G.R. No.L-29428January 27,1983 Land Authority vs. Rosendo De Leon G.R. No. L-28971January 28, 1983 Arleo E. Magtibay vs. Santiago Garcia G.R. No. L-32522January 28, 1983 Director of Lands vs. Leonor Gonzales G.R. No. L-39152January 28, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Leonardo Cenido Castillo G.R. No. L-56545January 28, 1983 Bert Osmeña & Associates vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-56261January 27, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo M. Manimtim G.R. No. L-56605January 28, 1983 Andres C. Sarmiento vs. Celestino C. Juan G.R. No. L-56699January 28, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Pedro Tamayao G.R. No. L-60819January 28, 1983 Lamberto Del Rosario vs. Court of Agrarian Relations G.R. No. L-61791January 28, 1983 Purificacion Alarcon vs. Abdulwahid Bidin G.R. No. L-30615January 31, 1983 Anchorage Wood Industries, Inc. vs. Bislig Bay Lumber Co., Inc. G.R. No. L-31683January 31, 1983 Ernesto M. De Guzman vs. Abelardo Subido G.R. No. L-35385January 31, 1983 Alfredo De La Fuente vs. Jesus De Veyra G.R. No. L-35796January 31, 1983 Reparations Commission. vs. Jesus P. Morfe G.R. No. L-35960January 31, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Angel P. Bacani G.R. No. L-38715January 31, 1983 Jesus Tapales vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-47675-76January 31, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Marciano Domen G.R. No. L-50998January 31, 1983 Felipe V. Cruz vs. J. Isaac S. Puno, Jr. G.R. No. L-56171January 31, 1983 Nida Gaba vs. Jose P. Castro G.R. No. L-58321January 31, 1983 Jose V. Panes vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-59750January 31, 1983 Benguet Corp. vs. Joaquin T. Venus, Jr. G.R. No. L-60316January 31, 1983 Violeta Alday vs. Serafin E. Camilon G.R. No. L-61770January 31, 1983 Jose S. Bagcal vs. J. Rolando R. Villaraza G.R. No. L-33983January 27, 1983 Republic of the Philippines vs. Judge Benjamin H. Aquino The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Philipine Association of Free Labor Unions vs. Court of First Instance of Rizal Pedro Santos to vs. Ernani Cruz-Paño MA. Lourdes T. Cruz vs. Minister of Labor and Employment People of the Philippines vs. Guillermo L. Oliverio Purificacion V. Advento vs. Priscilla C. Mijares Maximiano Tuason vs. Santiago Ranada, Jr. Trade Unions of the Phils. vs. Cresenciano B. Trajano Roman Peñaflor vs. National Labor Relations Commission Leticia G. Acuña vs. Herminigildo C. Cruz Demetrio G. Villa vs. Federico A. Llanes, Jr. International Harvester Macleod, Inc. vs. Ago Timber Corp. Ortigas & Co. Limited Partnership vs. Jose B. Herrera People of the Philippines vs. Ricarte Macariola C & C Commercial Corp. vs. Antonio C. Menor Soledad O. San agustin vs. Carolina Orozco Bartolome Claridad vs. Arturo B. Santos Republic of the Philippines vs. Cfi, Negros Occidental Marcial Costin vs. Lope C. Quimbo Cristina Penullar vs. Philippine National Bank Maximo Marcia vs. Court of Appeals Republic of the Philippines vs. Silvestre Br. Bello Republic of the Phils. vs. Abraham P. Vera Republic of the Philippines vs. Numeriano G. Estenzo Vicente Godinez. vs. Fong Pak Luen. People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto Onavia Luis Ridad vs. Filipinas Investment and Finance Corp. Hermenegildo Enriquez vs. Remigio E. Zari Johnny Bustillos vs. Amado Inciong Cresencio Espejo vs. Martino Malate People of the Philippines vs. Michael J. Butler People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo M. Manimtim Jose Mari Eulalio C. Lozada vs. Commision on Elections United Cmc Textile Workers Union vs. Blas F. Ople Land Authority vs. Rosendo De Leon Arleo E. Magtibay vs. Santiago Garcia Director of Lands vs. Leonor Gonzales People of the Philippines vs. Leonardo Cenido Castillo Bert Osmeña & Associates vs. Court of Appeals People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo M. Manimtim Andres C. Sarmiento vs. Celestino C. Juan People of the Philippines vs. Pedro Tamayao Lamberto Del Rosario vs. Court of Agrarian Relations Purificacion Alarcon vs. Abdulwahid Bidin Anchorage Wood Industries, Inc. vs. Bislig Bay Lumber Co., Inc. Ernesto M. De Guzman vs. Abelardo Subido Alfredo De La Fuente vs. Jesus De Veyra Reparations Commission. vs. Jesus P. Morfe People of the Philippines vs. Angel P. Bacani Jesus Tapales vs. Court of Appeals People of the Philippines vs. Marciano Domen Felipe V. Cruz vs. J. Isaac S. Puno, Jr. Nida Gaba vs. Jose P. Castro Jose V. Panes vs. Court of Appeals Benguet Corp. vs. Joaquin T. Venus, Jr. Violeta Alday vs. Serafin E. Camilon Jose S. Bagcal vs. J. Rolando R. Villaraza Republic of the Philippines vs. Judge Benjamin H. Aquino The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. L-49580 January 17, 1983
PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS (PAFLU), CATALINO LUZANO, FELICIANO RUBIO, PRUDENCIO JALANDONI, RODOLFO ANASTACIO, DOMINADOR REUBAL, DOMINGO BARREDO, ELISEO CARPIO, LEONARDO ESPEJON, RUFINO AGUA, WILFREDO ADEFUIN, NICASIO MORDENO, JOSE FERRERAS, HONORIO UNTAL and APOLINARIO DIZON,petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, HON. EUTROPIO MIGRINO, PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS COMPANY, INC. and ALFREDO CHING,respondents.
Vicente Rafael & Associates for petitioners.
D. B. Salem & Associates for respondents.
FERNANDO,C.J.:
The question raised in this certiorari and prohibition proceeding is the lack of jurisdiction of respondent Court of First Instance of Rizal to entertain a criminal suit arising from what is alleged to be, an illegal strike. Such a question was raised in a motion to quash on the ground that the then applicable Presidential Decrees1precluded the fiscal from filing any information without exhausting the jurisdictional requisites. The failure to do so was for petitioner even more objectionable because the labor dispute which gave rise to such a strike had been settled.
The information sets forth the acts by which the criminal liability of petitioners is predicated. Thus: "That on or about the 19th day of February, 1976, in the Municipality of Pasig, Province of Rizal, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, who are officers and/or members of the Philippine Association of Free labor Unions (PAFLU) Luzano Faction and who are laborers of the Philippine Blooming Mills Company, Inc., a corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine Laws which is engaged in the manufacture, production and/or processing of various steel products, a VITAL INDUSTRY, conspiring and confederating together, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously stage or declare a strike by establishing picket lines in front of the factory of the Philippine Blooming Mills Company, Inc., thus resulting in work stoppage and paralization of various works and projects in the factory premises, to the damage and prejudice of the said factory."2Upon the filing of the petition, this Court required comment on the part of the respondents and issued a temporary restraining order.1äwphï1.ñëtThe jurisdictional question involved arose from the fact that there was then a pending case before the National Labor Relations Commission. For petitioners, it was impressed with a pre-judicial character. Its resolution then was called for before a strike can be stigmatized as illegal. Moreover, it was contended that the National Labor Relations Commission and eventually the then Secretary of Labor, not the courts that should determine its legality or illegality. In their comment, private respondents argued that the criminal case could proceed as no labor dispute was involved. Hence, there was no jurisdictional infirmity that could call for the grant of the writ prayed for. For reasons to be given, we find for petitioners.
1. There is much to be said for the jurisdictional issue raised. If apparently there is a failure on the part of respondents to take into consideration the force and effect of Presidential Decree No. 849 amending Presidential Decree No. 823. Section 1 of the latter decree reads as follows: "It is the policy of the State to encourage trade unionism and free collective bargaining within the framework of compulsory and voluntary arbitration and therefore all forms of strikes, picketing and lockouts are hereby strictly prohibited."3It was issued on November 3, 1975. Clearly there was a flat prohibition of the right to strike. Then came on December 16, 1975 the amendatory Presidential Decree. By virtue thereof, certain strikes were deemed illegal primarily those in vital industries. There is even then exception provided for, namely that "any legitimate labor union may strike and any employer may lockout in establishments not covered by General Order No. 5 only on grounds of unresolved economic issues in collective bargaining, in which case the union or the employer shall file a notice with the Bureau of Labor Relations at least 30 days before the intended strike or lockout."4The Decree goes on to state: "Should the dispute remain unsettled thereafter, the union may go on strike and the employer may lockout unless the President or his duly authorized representative certifies the dispute to the National Labor Relations Commission for compulsory arbitration in the interest of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedom of others. Such certification shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the strike or lockout."5What is more the amendatory Decree specifically recognizes the right to strike. Thus: "If not certified, the union may strike and the employer may lockout."6Even if it be assumed, therefore, that private respondents are engaged in a vital industry, a point this Court does not have to decide, the question of whether or not the strike is tainted with illegality remains. At the very least then, the filing of the information on July 1, 1976 was premature.
2. That conclusion receives reinforcement from the submission of petitioners that the National Labor Relations Commission, ultimately the President for certification purposes, that determines the question of legality or lack of it.ℒαwρhi৷That is to conform with what this Court has so long and so consistently held on this issue. That principle was followed as far back as the Court of Industrial Relations Act. It was to such tribunal that the primary jurisdiction was vested. The rationale is not difficult to discern. For in the language ofSecurity Bank Employees Union-NATU v. Security Bank & Trust Co.,7it was "better equipped by training, experience, and background to handle labor controversies ... ."8In thePhilippine American Management & Financing Co., Inc. v. Management & Supervisors Association of the Phil-American Mgt. & Financing Co., Inc.,9this Court even went to the extent of holding that a petition for declaratory relief regarding the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement was wither the jurisdiction of the then Court of Industrial Relations. So it should be under the present Labor Code, with its avowed philosophy of leaving to the appropriate Ministry of Labor agencies, rather than to the Court, the settlement of labor disputes. For respondents to assert that a strike does not involve a controversy of that kind is to lose sight of realities.
3. What justifies the interposition of the corrective authority of this Tribunal even more is the fact that the information is limited to petitioners having engaged in picketing. It need not be stressed that peaceful picketing is embraced in freedom of expression. As emphatically declared inPhilippine Commercial & Industrial Bank v. Philnabank Employees' Association:10"From the time ofMortera 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."11Reference was made in such opinion toAssociated Labor Union v. Gomez.12In 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."13It 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,
4. The present law on the subject, Batas Pambansa Blg. 227, is even more emphatic: "(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 thorough fares."14That makes it even more imperative that this petition be granted. For it is therein provided: "All laws, decrees, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed or modified accordingly."15The Act was made to take effect upon its approval which took place on June 1, 1982, when President Marcos affixed his signature. Since it is the penal aspect of Presidential Decree No. 823 as amended by Presidential Decree No. 849 that is the basis for the criminal action, it follows that whatever offense might have been committed is now no longer punishable.
WHEREFORE,the writ of certiorari is granted and the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 19214 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch VI, declared null and void and of no force and effect. The writ of prohibition is likewise granted, respondent Judge Eutropio Migriño or whoever would be appointed to the appropriate branch of the Regional Trial Court prohibited from acting in any wise or form except to dismiss the aforesaid case. The temporary restraining order issued in tills case is made permanent. Costs against private respondent.
Makasiar Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur.
Aquino, J., took no part.
Footnotes