Bisig ng Manggagawa sa Concrete Aggregates, Inc. v. NLRC Pet: Bisig ng Manggagawa sa Concrete Aggregates, Inc.

(BIMCAI) is the union representing the ees of Private Respondent: Concrete Aggregates, Inc. Facts: 1. 6 Apr 1992 The union picketed several (6) premises of their employer (Bagumbayan and Longos in Q.C.; Angono and Antipolo in Rizal; San Fernando, Pampanga; and San Pedro Laguna.) a. The union was protesting : ULP and Union Busting. 2. 8 Apr Employer FILED : Injunction to stop the illegal strike, with the NLRC alleging among others: a. The April 6 strike was a Wild-cat strike, in that there was no notice of strike, it did not comply with the cooling off period, and there was a pending mediation proceeding scheduled on 10 Apr. b. That during the strike the union impeded the ingress and egress to the premises by setting up makeshifts, tents, banners, streamers, and other man-made obstructions. c. That the union had (and still is) doing other illegal acts such as threats, intimidation, and coercions against persons with lawful business with the employer. 3. 13 Apr NLRC heard the petition ex parte, for failure of the union to appear, NLRC issued a TRO a. Apparently the union was not notified of the petition, the company misrepresented its address b. Neither did the union get a copy of the TRO, it only learned of it when it was posted on 15Apr in the premises of the company 4. 24 Apr the Union in turn FILED: Injunction, to enjoin the company from asking the aid of police and military to escort scabs (Case really said scabs, but it should probably have been people and vehicles) from entering the establishment. 5. 30 Apr the employer filed a Motion for the Immediate Issuance of Preliminary Injunction alleging: that the union was still committing illegal acts complained of despite the TRO. 6. 4 Mar : Union was notified of the motion. a. Next day (5 Mar) the union opposed the motion on the ground that they were never furnished a copy of the petition for injunction. 7. NLRC (Same day that union opposed, just one day after the union was notified): issued the disputed order, GRANTED Employers Preliminary Injunction against the union, based on testimonies, that: a. Despite TRO strike continued b. By forming a human blockade, the union prevented vehicles from entering the premises c. By force and intimidation prevented the non striking employees from going to work d. Wala kaming pakielem sa TRO ninyoBubugbugin namin kayo pag kayo nagpilit e. Ramon Bana, Union President: sisimentuhin naming ang gates ng Concrete Aggregate na kahit ipis as hindi makakpasok

8. Union filed the instant petition for certiorari Issue: W/N the issuance of the Preliminary Injunction against the union was proper? NO. It violated their right to strike, and it did not comply with the LCs requirements for the issuance of an injunction. Held: 1. Phil. History of the right to Strike a. Justice Punos opening statement at the start of the case: The restoration of the right to strike is the most valuable gain of labor after the EDSA revolution. It is the employees sole weapon. In recognition of its importance, our Consti has accorded this right a distinct status while our laws have assured that its rightful exercise will not be negated by the issuance of unnecessary injunctions. b. Industrial Peace Act: congress have statutory recognition to the right to strike. c. Martial Law: prohibited the right to strike for 14years d. 1987 Consti: treated labor with a favored eye. For the first time in our history the consti mandated: Par.2, 9, Art XIII to guarantee the rights of all workers to self-org, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. e. Labor Code, implementing law of the consti provision, provided 218(e) giving specific requisites for issuance of injunctions. (see LC for full provision) 2. NLRCs Preliminary injunction was improper. Non-compliance with 218(3) subpar 4 and 5 a. Affidavits used by the company in proving the continued strike despite the TRO was controverted upon presentation to the labor abiter. b. No less than the companys operations manager, Mr.Mercado, further testified that after the issuance of the TRO, the barricades were removed. c. Mr. Mercado and Atty. Jolo(personnel manager) also testified that public authorities charged to protect the companys properties were neither unwilling nor unable to furnish adequate protection. As a matter of fact, police assistance was never requested. 3. Records reveal continuing misuse of unfair strategies by the company to secure the ex-parte TRO. a. The union was never furnished a copy of the petition for injunction b. They were denied the right to attend the 13Apr hearing where the TRO was issued 4. Issuance of ex-parte TRO is not per se prohibited BUT it must be clearly justified by considerations of extreme necessity. a. Because imprudently issues TROs can break the back of employees engaged in a legal strike. b. The deleterious effects of such a TRO on the rights of striking employees can no longer be repaired for they defy simple monetization. c. As such it behooves officers receiving evidence to support ex-parte evidence to take a more active stance seeing to it that the right to social justice is in no way violated.

5. Nor does the court find baseless the allegation by the union that NLRC had neglected to resolves their injunction. a. The companys prayer for ex-parte TRO was heard and granted on the same day. b. The companys petition for preliminary injunction was filed april 30 and was granted less than a week after May5. c. On the other hand, the unions petition has not yet been heard nor decided. d. The disparate treatment is inexplicable considering the subject matters of their petition are of similar importance to the parties and to the public. WHEREFORE GRANTED: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (against striking workers)ANNULED & SET ASIDE Further: NLRC is ordered to hear and resolve with deliberate speed unions petition for injunction filed on 30 April 1992.