GR L 21378; (November, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21378; November 28, 1966
REPUBLIC FLOUR MILLS WORKERS ASSOCIATION and PAFLU, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE JUDGE ANDRES REYES and AIA FEED MILLS, INC., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, Republic Flour Mills Workers Association and PAFLU, declared a strike against their employer, Republic Flour Mills, Inc., and established picket lines on June 1, 1963. Respondent AIA Feed Mills, Inc., a lessee occupying a parcel of land within the compound owned by Republic Flour Mills, Inc., filed a petition for injunction in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. AIA Feed Mills alleged that it is a distinct and separate corporation from Republic Flour Mills, Inc., with no employer-employee relationship with the striking unions, and that the picket lines prevented its own employees from entering its premises, causing stoppage of operations and irreparable damage. Petitioners moved to dismiss, arguing the injunction was a “labor injunction” under Republic Act 875 (the Industrial Peace Act) and that the petition failed to allege the jurisdictional requisites under Section 9(b) of said Act. The respondent Judge, after hearing, found AIA Feed Mills to be a separate entity with distinct personnel and business, and that the picketing had no connection with it. He issued a writ of preliminary injunction ordering petitioners to desist from preventing AIA Feed Mills’ employees from entering its premises. Petitioners filed this certiorari, contending that AIA Feed Mills is a subsidiary of Republic Flour Mills, operations are intermingled, and the injunction was issued without complying with Section 9(b) of Republic Act 875, effectively enjoining picketing against Republic Flour Mills as well.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent Judge had jurisdiction to issue the writ of preliminary injunction, or acted with grave abuse of discretion, considering the applicability of Republic Act 875’s provisions on labor injunctions.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. It upheld the lower court’s finding that AIA Feed Mills, Inc. is a distinct and separate entity from Republic Flour Mills, Inc., with no employer-employee relationship or labor dispute with the petitioner unions. Consequently, the injunction issued was not a “labor injunction” under Section 9(d) of Republic Act 875, which applies only to cases involving or growing out of a labor dispute. Since no labor dispute existed between petitioners and AIA Feed Mills, the court had jurisdiction to issue an ordinary injunction under Rule 60 of the Rules of Court (now Rule 58). The Court cited Associated Watchmen and Security Union vs. United States Lines, which held that if no labor dispute exists, courts may issue injunctions under the Rules of Court. The writ was limited to preventing interference with AIA Feed Mills’ employees and did not curtail the right to picket Republic Flour Mills. The respondent Judge did not act without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, as the injunction was issued after a hearing and was narrowly tailored. Costs were imposed on petitioners.