Liwayway Publications vs Pcwu

Sanctions For Illegal Strike  Relations Law LIWAYWAY

PUBLICATIONS,

INC., plaintiff-appellee,

vs. PERMANE PERMANENT NT CONCRET CONCRETE E WORKERS WORKERS UNION, UNION, Aff Affiliat iliated ed with the NATI NATIONAL ONAL ASSOCIA ASSOCIATI TION ON OF TRADE TRADE UNIONS, UNIONS, ERMO!E ERMO!ENES NES ATRA"O, TRA"O, A#UILIN A#UILINO O DISTOR, DISTOR, BEN$AMIN BEN$AMIN !UTIERR !UTIERRE", E", $OSE RAMOS, TIBURCIO MARDO, ERNESTO ALMARIO a%d DOMIN!O LEANO, defendants-appellants. &'( SCRA &) FACTS*

Liwayway Publications, Inc brought an action in the CFI Manila against Permanent Concrete or!er or!ers s "nion "nion for issuan issuance ce of rit rit of Preli Prelimin minary ary In#unc In#unctio tion n and for damage damages s it incurr incurred ed when when its employees were prevented from getting their daily supply of newsprint from its bodega. Plaintiff alleged that it is a second sub lessee of a part of the premises of Permanent Concrete Products, a first lessee of  $on %amon %oces. &he premises between the parties are separated by concrete and barbed wire fence with its own entrance and road leading to the national road. &he employees of the Permanent Concrete Products, Inc. who are representatives and members of the defendant union declared a stri!e against their company. For un!nown reasons and without legal  #ustification, PC" and its members pic!eted, stopped and prohibited plaintiff's truc! from entering the compound to load newsprint from its bodega. &he union members intimidated and threatened with bodily harm the employees who were in the truc!. &hen, union members stopped and prohibited the general manager, manager, personnel personnel manager, manager, bodega-in-cha bodega-in-charge rge and other employees of the plaintif plaintifff from getting newsprint in their bodega. Plaintiff made repeated demands to the defendants not to intimidate and threaten its employees with bodily harm and not to bloc!ade, pic!et or prohibit plaintiff's truc! from getting newsprint in their  bodega. $efendants refused and continued to refuse to give in to the demands of the plaintiffs which Liwayw Liwayway ay rented rented anothe anotherr bodega bodega and incurr incurred ed e(pens e(penses es both both in terms terms of bodega bodega rental rentals s and in transporting newsprint from pier to the temporary bodega. ISSUE*

May a pic!et be en#oined at the instance of a third party) ELD*

&he busine business ss of the appell appellee ee is e(clus e(clusive ively ly the publi publicat cation ion of the maga*i maga*ines nes +annaw +annawag, ag, +isaya +isaya,, iligaynon and Liwayway wee!ly maga*ines which has absolutely no relation or connection whatsoever  with the cause of the stri!e of the union against their company, much less with the terms, conditions or  demands of the stri!ers. &he appellee is a third party or an innocent by-stander whose right has been invaded and, therefore, entitled to protection by the regular courts. -&he right to pic!et as a means of communicating the facts of a labor dispute is a phase of the freedom of  speech guaranteed by the constitution. If peacefully carried out, it cannot be curtailed even in the absence of employer-employee relationship. &he right is, however, not an absolute one.  hile peaceful pic!eting is entitled to protection as an e(ercise of free speech, we believe that courts are not without power to confine or locali*e the sphere of communication or the demonstration to the parties to the labor dispute, includ includin ing g those those with with relate related d intere interest, st, and to insula insulate te establ establish ishmen ments ts or person persons s with with no indust industria riall connection or having interest totally foreign to the conte(t of the dispute. &hus, the right may be regulated at the instance of third parties or innocent bystanders' if it appears that the inevitable result of its e(ercise

Sanctions For Illegal Strike  Relations Law is to create an impression that a labor dispute with which they have no connection or interest e(ists between them and the pic!eting union or constitute an invasion of their rights. In one case decided by this Court, we upheld a trial court's in#unction prohibiting the union from bloc!ing the entrance to a feed mill located within the compound of a flour mill with which the union had a dispute. /lthough sustained on a different ground, no connection was found other than their being situated in the same premises. It is to be noted that in the instances cited, peaceful pic!eting has not been totally banned but merely regulated.  /nd in one /merican case, a pic!et by a labor union in front of a motion picture theater with which the union had a labor dispute was en#oined by the court from being e(tended in front of the main entrance of  the building housing the theater wherein other stores operated by third persons were located. -0n appeal, the 1upreme Court in upholding the #urisdiction of the lower court to issue the writ of  preliminary in#unction, ruled that2 3a4 there is no connection between the appellee, the appellant union and the Permanent Concrete Products, Inc. and the fact, that the latter and appellee are situated in the same premises, can hardly be considered as interwoven with the labor dispute pending with the Court of  Industrial %elations5 and 3b4 the acts of the stri!ing union are mere acts of trespass for which the lessee shall have a direct action against the trespasser.