G.R. No. L-1340 – 79 Phil. 345 – Labor Law – Labor Relations – Picketing – Illegal Picketing – Splitting of Unions
Political Law – Constitutional Law – Freedom of Speech – Picketing
In December 1946, the Bisig ng Canlubang Union (BCU) demanded from the Canlubang Sugar Estate (CSE) the salary increase of its employees and other benefits. CSE refused and so BCU staged a strike. A case was filed and in February 1947, the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) ordered the striking union to return to work and that any employee who shall fail to return to their post shall be substituted by CSE with a new employee. The CIR also prohibited any form of picketing while the case is pending. CSE was ordered to accept the returning employees and to maintain status quo. Both parties complied.
But during the pendency of the case, a new labor union, the Canlubang Worker’s Union (abbreviated in the case as “CLO”) was formed headed by Hermogenes Mortera. This new union then conducted a strike against CSE. CSE sought the stoppage of the CLO strike but the CLO averred that the CIR order does not cover them because the CLO was not a party to the case pending before the CIR.
ISSUE: Whether or not the CLO is covered by the order of the CIR to not hold any strike during the pendency of the case.
HELD: Yes. The CLO is covered by the order. The members of the CLO were the same members comprising the BCU. They were the same BCU members who are party to the case pending with the CIR. When they seceded from BCU to form another, they remained to be workers of the Canlubang Sugar Estate. To allow CLO’s stand would be giving approval to a scheme by which a workers’ union, in case of an adverse decision of the CIR or any labor court, may always make a mockery of orders and decisions of said court simply by forming a new union. Therefore, the CLO must comply with the CIR order.
The Supreme Court however clarified that the order of the CIR prohibiting any form of picketing must be understood to prohibit only illegal picketing. Peaceful picketing cannot be prohibited. It is part of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution.
