G.R. No. 105090 September 16, 1993
BISIG NG MANGGAGAWA SA CONCRETE AGGREGATES, INC., (BIMCAI) FSM, AND ITS UNION OFFICERS & MEMBERS, ETC., petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER ERNILO V. PEÑALOSA and CONCRETE AGGREGATES CORP., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner union staged a strike on April 6, 1992, protesting unfair labor practices and union busting by private respondent Concrete Aggregates Corp., and set up pickets at various company premises. On April 8, 1992, the company filed a petition for injunction with the NLRC to stop the strike, alleging it was a “wild-cat strike” without a valid notice, during a cooling-off period, and while preventive mediation was pending. The company also alleged the strikers set up obstructions impeding ingress and egress, and resorted to threats and intimidation. The union claimed it was not furnished a copy of this petition due to an incorrect address. On April 13, 1992, the NLRC held an ex parte hearing, receiving evidence from the company alone, including an Ocular Inspection Report noting obstructions. That same day, the NLRC issued a 20-day Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) directing the removal of barricades. The union learned of the TRO only when it was posted on April 15, 1992. The union filed its opposition on April 21, 1992, and its own Petition for Injunction on April 24, 1992, to enjoin the company from using police and military to escort strikebreakers. Hearings were conducted by Labor Arbiter Peñalosa on April 24, 30, May 4, and 5, 1992. On April 30, 1992, the company filed a Motion for Immediate Issuance of Preliminary Injunction, alleging continued illegal acts and threats by the union. The union opposed this motion on May 5, 1992. On the same day, May 5, 1992, the NLRC issued a writ of preliminary injunction against the union. The union’s petition for injunction remained unresolved. The union filed the instant petition challenging the NLRC’s orders.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the temporary restraining order and the writ of preliminary injunction against the striking union.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled and set aside the NLRC’s Order dated May 5, 1992, and ordered the public respondents to hear and resolve the union’s petition for injunction with deliberate speed. The Court held that the right to strike is a constitutionally recognized fundamental right of workers. The NLRC’s issuance of the TRO and the preliminary injunction was a grave abuse of discretion. The TRO was issued after an ex parte hearing where the union was not given notice or opportunity to be heard, violating procedural due process. The preliminary injunction was issued based on allegations of illegal acts without a prior finding that the strike was illegal. The Labor Code prohibits the issuance of injunctions in labor disputes, except under specific conditions not present here, such as when the strike is certified for compulsory arbitration or when there is a finding of illegal acts. The NLRC failed to make such a requisite finding. Furthermore, the Court noted the disparate treatment, as the company’s petition was acted upon swiftly while the union’s petition remained pending. The orders infringed upon the union’s right to strike.