of 11
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
  PHIMCO INDUSTRIES, INC. vs. PHIMCO INDUSTRIES LABOR ASSOCIATION(PILA)G.R. No. 170830; Augu! 11, "010#ACTS : PHIMCO is a corporation engaged in the production of matches. RespondentPhimco Industries Labor Association (PILA is the du!" authori#ed bargainingrepresentative of PHIMCO$s dai!"%paid &or'ers. hen the !ast co!!ective bargainingagreement &as about to e)pire on *ecember +,- ,/- PHIMCO and PILA negotiatedfor its rene&a!. 0he negotiation resu!ted in a dead!oc' on economic issues- main!" dueto disagreements on sa!ar" increases and benefits.PILA staged a stri'e. PHIMCO fi!ed &ith the 1LRC a petition for pre!iminar"in2unction and temporar" restraining order (0RO- to en2oin the stri'ers frompreventing 3 through force- intimidation and coercion 3 the ingress and egress of non%stri'ing emp!o"ees into and from the compan" premises. 0he 1LRC issued an e)%parte0RO- effective for a period of t&ent" (45 da"s.LA found the stri'e i!!ega!6 the respondents committed prohibited acts during the stri'eb" b!oc'ing the ingress to and egress from PHIMCO$s premises and preventing thenon%stri'ing emp!o"ees from reporting for &or'. He observed that it &as not enoughthat the pic'et of the stri'ers &as a moving pic'et- since the stri'ers shou!d a!!o& thefree passage to the entrance and e)it points of the compan" premises. 0hus- LAdec!ared that the respondent emp!o"ees- PILA officers and members- have !ost theiremp!o"ment status.On appea!- the 1LRC set aside the LA$s decision. 0he 1LRC did not give &eight toPHIMCO$s evidence- and re!ied instead on the respondents$ evidence sho&ing that theunion conducted a peacefu! moving pic'et. PHIMCO fi!ed a motion for reconsiderationin the i!!ega! stri'e case. In a para!!e! deve!opment- the LA in the union$s i!!ega!dismissa! case ru!ed the respondents$ dismissa! as i!!ega!- and ordered theirreinstatement &ith pa"ment of bac'&ages. PHIMCO appea!ed LA decision to the1LRC. Pending the reso!ution of PHIMCO$s motion for reconsideration in the i!!ega!stri'e case and the appea! of the i!!ega! dismissa! case- the t&o cases &ere conso!idated.0he 1LRC rendered its *ecision in the conso!idated cases- ru!ing tota!!" in the union$sfavor. It dismissed the appea! of the i!!ega! dismissa! case- and denied PHIMCO$smotion for reconsideration in the i!!ega! stri'e case. ISSUE : hether the CA correct!" ru!ed that the 1LRC did not act &ith grave abuse ofdiscretion in ru!ing that the union$s stri'e &as !ega!. HELD : 0he stri'e &as i!!ega! for the commission of prohibited acts.  *espite the va!idit" of the purpose of a stri'e and comp!iance &ith the procedura!re7uirements- a stri'e ma" sti!! be he!d i!!ega! &here the $%&' %$o*%+  are i!!ega!.0he means become i!!ega! &hen the" come &ithin the prohibitions under Artic!e 48/(eof the Labor Code &hich provides:1o person engaged in pic'eting sha!! commit an" act of vio!ence- coercion orintimidation or obstruct the free ingress to or egress from the emp!o"er9s premises for!a&fu! purposes- or obstruct pub!ic thoroughfares.0o stri'e is to &ithho!d or to stop &or' b" the concerted action of emp!o"ees as a resu!tof an industria! or !abor dispute.   0he &or' stoppage ma" be accompanied b" pic'etingb" the stri'ing emp!o"ees outside of the compan" compound. hi!e a stri'e focuses onstoppage of &or'- pic'eting focuses on pub!ici#ing the !abor dispute and its incidents toinform the pub!ic of &hat is happening in the compan" struc' against. A pic'et simp!"means to march to and from the emp!o"er$s premises- usua!!" accompanied b" thedisp!a" of p!acards and other signs ma'ing 'no&n the facts invo!ved in a !abor dispute.It is a stri'e activit" separate and different from the actua! stoppage of &or'. hi!e theright of emp!o"ees to pub!ici#e their dispute fa!!s &ithin the protection of freedom ofe)pression and the right to peaceab!e assemb!e to air grievances-   these rights are b" nomeans abso!ute. Protected pic'eting does not e)tend to b!oc'ing ingress to and egressfrom the compan" premises. 0hat the pic'et &as moving- &as peacefu! and &as notattended b" actua! vio!ence ma" not free it from taints of i!!ega!it" if the pic'eteffective!" b!oc'ed entr" to and e)it from the compan" premises.ith a virtua! human b!oc'ade and rea! ph"sica! obstructions (benches and ma'eshiftstructures both outside and inside the gates- it &as pure con2ecture on the part of the1LRC to sa" that ;t<he non%stri'ers and their vehic!es &ere ) ) ) free to get in and outof the compan" compound undisturbed b" the pic'et !ine. 1otab!"- aside from non%stri'ers &ho &ished to report for &or'- compan" vehic!es !i'e&ise cou!d not enter andget out of the factor" because of the pic'et and the ph"sica! obstructions therespondents insta!!ed. 0he b!oc'ade &ent to the point of causing the bui!d up of trafficin the immediate vicinit" of the stri'e area- as sho&n b" photographs. 0his- b" itse!f-renders the pic'et a prohibited activit". Pic'ets ma" not aggressive!" interfere &ith theright of peacefu! ingress to and egress from the emp!o"er$s shop or obstruct pub!icthoroughfares6 pic'eting is not peacefu! &here the side&a!' or entrance to a p!ace ofbusiness is obstructed b" pic'eters parading around in a circ!e or !"ing on the side&a!'. CITIBAN, N.A. -. COURT O# APPEALS &'+ CITIBAN INTEGRATED GUARDSLABOR ALLIANCE (CIGLA)G.R. No. 108/1. No-%$% "7, 18#ACTS : In ,=+- Citiban' and >! 0oro ?ecurit" Agenc"- Inc. (hereafter >! 0oro enteredinto a contract for the !atter to provide securit" and protective services to safeguard and  protect the ban'9s premises- situated at =@/, Paseo de Ro)as- Ma'ati- Metro Mani!a.nder the contract- >! 0ore ob!igated itse!f to provide the services of securit" guards tosafeguard and protect the premises and propert" of Citiban' against theft- robber" oran" other un!a&fu! acts committed b" an" person or persons- and assumedresponsibi!it" for !osses andBor damages that ma" be incurred b" Citiban' due to or asa resu!t of the neg!igence of >! 0oro or an" of its assigned personne!. Citiban' rene&edthe securit" contract &ith >! 0oro "ear!" unti! ,5. On Apri! 44- ,5- the contractbet&een Citiban' and >! 0oro e)pired. On une @- ,5- respondent Citiban' Integrated Duards Labor A!!iance%?>DA%0PA?BE?M (hereafter CIDLA fi!ed &ith 1CMF a re7uest for preventive mediationciting Citiban' as respondent therein for a!!eged unfair !abor practice- dismissa! ofunion officersBmembers and union busting committed b" Citiban'.On une ,5- ,5- petitioner Citiban' served on >! 0oro a &ritten notice that the ban'&ou!d not rene& an"more the service agreement &ith the !atter. Citiban' then hiredanother securit" agenc"- the Do!den P"ramid ?ecurit" Agenc"- to render securit"services at Citiban'9s premises. 0his !ed respondent CIDLA to fi!e a notice of stri'edirected at the premises of the Citiban' main office on une ,/- ,5.In order to protect its interests- Citiban' fi!ed &ith the Regiona! 0ria! Court of Ma'ati acomp!aint for in2unction and damages see'ing to en2oin CIDLA and an" personc!aiming membership therein from stri'ing or other&ise disrupting the operations ofthe ban'. Respondent CIDLA vehement!" opposed such fi!ing as the same is not &ithinthe 2urisdiction of the regu!ar courts being a !abor dispute. ISSUE : (ahether or not the regu!ar courts have 2urisdiction over the Comp!aint fi!ed b"Citiban'.(bhether the controvers" invo!ves a !abor dispute. HELD : (aGes- the regu!ar courts have 2urisdiction over the Comp!aint fi!ed b" Citiban'.0here &as no emp!o"er%emp!o"ee re!ationship bet&een Citiban' and RespondentCIDLA. 0he Labor Arbiter has no 2urisdiction over a c!aim fi!ed &here no emp!o"er%emp!o"ee re!ationship e)isted bet&een a compan" and the securit" guards assigned toit b" a securit" service contractor. In this case- it &as the securit" agenc" >! 0oro thatrecruited- hired and assigned the &atchmen to their p!ace of &or'. It &as the securit"agenc" that &as ans&erab!e to Citiban' for the conduct of its guards.(b1o- the controvers"%in%issue is not a !abor dispute. Artic!e 4,4- paragraph , ofthe Labor Code provides that a !abor dispute inc!udes an" controvers" or matter  concerning terms of conditions of emp!o"ment or the association or representation ofpersons in negotiating- fi)ing- maintaining- changing or arranging the terms andconditions of emp!o"ment- regard!ess of &hether the disputants stand in the pro)imatere!ation of emp!o"er and emp!o"ee.If at a!!- the dispute bet&een the Citiban' and >! 0oro securit" agenc" is one regardingthe termination or non%rene&a! of the contract of services. 0his is a civi! dispute. >! 0oro&as an independent contractor. 0hus- no emp!o"er%emp!o"ee re!ationship e)istedbet&een Citiban' and the securit" guards members of the union in the securit" agenc"&ho &ere assigned to secure the ban'9s premises and propert". Hence- there &as no!abor dispute and no right to stri'e against the ban'. SMC2EU -. HON. BERSAMIRAG.R. No. 87700. u'% 13, 10#ACTS : ?MC entered into contracts for merchandising services &ith Lipercon and*9Rite (L*- independent contractors du!" !icensed b" *OL>. In said contracts- it &ase)press!" understood and agreed that the emp!o"ees emp!o"ed b" the contractors &ereto be paid b" the !atter and that none of them &ere to be deemed emp!o"ees or agentsof ?MC. 0here &as to be no emp!o"er%emp!o"ee re!ation bet&een the contractorsandBor its &or'ers- on the one hand- and ?MC on the other. Petitioner ?MC>%P0DO (nion is du!" authori#ed representative of themonth!" paid ran'%and%fi!e emp!o"ees of ?MC. 0heir CFA provides that temporar"-probationar"- or contract emp!o"ees are e)c!uded from the bargaining unit and outsidescope of CFA. nion advised ?MC that some L* &or'ers had signed up for unionmembership and sought the regu!ari#ation of their emp!o"ment &ith ?MC. niona!!eged that this group of emp!o"ees- &hi!e appearing to be contractua! &or'ers ofsupposed!" independent contractors- have been continuous!" &or'ing for ?MC for aperiod of 8 months to , "ears and that their &or' is neither casua! nor seasona! as the"are performing &or' or activities necessar" or desirab!e in the usua! business or trade of?MC- and that there e)ists a !abor%on!" contracting situation. It &as then demandedthat the emp!o"ment status of these &or'ers be regu!ari#ed. 0his &as not acted upon b"?MC- and so nion fi!ed a notice of stri'e- and then a second notice. ?eries of pic'ets &ere staged b" L* &or'ers in various ?MC p!ants and offices.?MC R0C to en2oin the nion from: representing and or acting for and in beha!f of theemp!o"ees of L* for the purposes of co!!ective bargaining6 ca!!ing for and ho!ding astri'e vote to compe! p!aintiff to hire the emp!o"ees or &or'ers of L*- among others.  ?MC fi!ed a verified Comp!aint for In2unction and *amages before respondentCourt to en2oin the nion from- among others- staging a stri'e and from manning thestri'e area andBor pic'et !ines andBor barricades &hich the L* &or'ers ma" set up atthe p!ants and offices of ?MC &ithin the bargaining unit referred to in the CFA. nion fi!ed a Motion to *ismiss ?MC9s Comp!aint on the ground of !ac' of 2urisdiction over the caseBnature of the action- &hich motion &as opposed b" ?MC-&hich &as denied b" respondent udge and- after severa! hearings- issued In2unction.R0C reasoned that the absence of >R%>> re!ationship negates the e)istence of !abordispute- so court has 2urisdiction to ta'e cogni#ance of ?MC9s grievance. Hence- thisaction. ISSUE : hether or not the R0C correct!" assumed 2urisdiction over the controvers"and proper!" issued the rit of Pre!iminar" In2unction.  HELD : 1O. A !abor dispute can neverthe!ess e)ist Jregard!ess of &hether thedisputants stand in the pro)imate re!ationship of emp!o"er and emp!o"ee- provided thecontrovers" concerns- among others- the terms and conditions of emp!o"ment or achange or arrangement thereofK 0he e)istence of a !abor dispute is not negated b"the fact that the ?MC and L* &or'ers do not stand in the pro)imate re!ation ofemp!o"er and emp!o"ee. In this case- the matter regarding the terms- tenure andconditions of the emp!o"ees$ emp!o"ment and the arrangement of those terms as &e!!as the matter of representation bring these issues &ithin the scope of a !abor dispute.Hence it is the !abor tribuna!s that have 2urisdiction and not the regu!ar courts As the case is indisputab!" !in'ed &ith a !abor dispute- 2urisdiction be!ongs tothe !abor tribuna!s. ?o- Labor Arbiters have srcina! and e)c!usive 2urisdiction to hearand decide the fo!!o&ing cases invo!ving a!! &or'ers inc!uding: ;a< unfair !abor practicecases6 ;b< those that &or'ers ma" fi!e invo!ving &ages- hours of &or' and other termsand conditions of emp!o"ment6 and ;c< cases arising from an" vio!ation of A48 LC-inc!uding 7uestions invo!ving the !ega!it" of stri'er and !oc'outs. ?MC$s c!aim that the action is for damages under Artic!es ,- 45 and 4, of Civi!Code is not enough to 'eep the case &ithin the 2urisdictiona! boundaries of regu!arCourts. 0hat c!aim for damages is inter&oven &ith a !abor dispute. 0o a!!o& the actionfi!ed be!o& to prosper &ou!d bring about sp!it 2urisdiction &hich is obno)ious to theorder!" administration of 2ustice. ?C recogni#es the proprietar" right of ?MC to e)ercise an inherent managementprerogative and its best business 2udgment to determine &hether it shou!d contract outthe performance of some of its &or' to independent contractors. Ho&ever- the rights ofa!! &or'ers to se!f%organi#ation- co!!ective bargaining and negotiations- and peacefu!concerted activities- inc!uding the right to stri'e in accordance &ith !a& e7ua!!" ca!! forrecognition and protection.
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!