04 Ravago v. Esso Eastern Marine, Ltd. a. Petitioner’s reliance on Art. 266 is misplaced.
The law
When Labor Injunction is Allowed|Mar. 14, 2005| J. Callejo
Nature of Case: Petition for review on certiorari
Digest maker: Lugo
SUMMARY: Petitioner Ravago filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against
respondent company. LA ruled in his favor and ordered reinstatement and
payment of backwages. NLRC affirmed. Respondent company argued that
there was no illegal dismissal in mere non-renewal of contract. In addition, it
applied for an issuance of WPI/TRO which the CA granted. Petitioner
Ravago alleged that WPI is prohibited by Art. 266 because the case involved a
labor dispute but SC disagreed because the case here did not fall under the
term “labor dispute” as defined by the Code. Also, the requisites for the
issuance of WPI was met.
DOCTRINE: When a case neither involves nor grows out of a labor dispute
(as defined by the Labor Code), Art. 266 anti-injunction principle does not
apply.
FACTS:
 Petitioner Ravago was hired by respondent company to work as seaman
in the latter’s vessels. He was repeatedly rehired, contract after contract,
for 22 years.
 He took a vacation on the 23rd year and just before embarkation for the
next contract, he was hit by a stray bullet and the company doctor
declared him to be unfit for work.
 Instead of rehiring him, he was paid his Career Employment Incentive
Plan as well as tax refunds. After receiving the amounts, he signed a
quitclaim. However, Ravago later on filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal. He alleged that a private doctor declared him to be fit for work
as he has already completely healed. LA ruled for Ravago. NLRC
affirmed.
 In CA, respondent company alleged that there was no illegal dismissal as
he was merely not rehired for the next contract. The respondent company
also filed an Urgent Application for the Issuance of a Temporary
Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction to enjoin and
restrain the LA from enforcing his decision (reinstatement + backwages).
 CA granted the application for preliminary injunction upon filing by the
respondent company of a bond.
 Ravago assailed the decision in that the instant case was a labor dispute,
wherein an injunction is proscribed under Art. 266, LC.
ISSUE/S & RATIO:
1. WON the issuance of WPI/TRO was made in violation of Art. 266 – NO
proscribes the issuance of injunctive relief only in those cases
involving or growing out of a labor dispute. The case before
the NLRC neither involves nor grows out of a labor dispute. It
did not involve the fixing of terms or conditions of employment
or representation of persons with respect thereto. The
complaint revolves around the issue of his alleged dismissal.
b. Moreover, Art. 266 specifically provides that the NLRC may
grant injunctive relief under Art. 225 thereof.
c. Besides, the anti-injunction policy of the Labor Code, basically,
is freedom at the workplace. It is more appropriate in the
promotion of the primacy of free collective bargaining and
negotiations, including voluntary arbitration, mediation and
conciliation, as modes of settling labor and industrial disputes.
d. The requirements of an injunction are:
(1) sufficiency of facts in the complaint establishing a proper
basis for injunction
(2) reasonable necessity to warrant injunction.
e. Here, the respondent company contains facts sufficient to
warrant the issuance of an injunction under Art. 225 (e) and they
have posted a bond more than adequate to cover the judgment
award.
RULING: IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is hereby DENIED.
The assailed Decision dated August 28, 2002 of the Court of Appeals is hereby
AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.
Art. 219 (l) Labor dispute – includes any controversy or matter concerning terms
and conditions of employment or the association or representation of persons in
negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or arranging the terms and conditions
of employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate
relation of employer and employee.