G.R. No. 128632. August 5, 1999.
MSF TIRE AND RUBBER, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PHILTREAD TIRE WORKERS’ UNION, respondents.

FACTS

A labor dispute arose between Philtread Tire and Rubber Corporation and the Philtread Tire Workers’ Union (Union). The Union filed a notice of strike, and Philtread filed a notice of lock-out. The Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the dispute and certified it for compulsory arbitration, enjoining both parties from striking or locking out. During the pendency of this dispute, Philtread entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with Siam Tyre Public Company Limited. Under this agreement, Philtread’s plant and equipment were sold to a new company, petitioner MSF Tire and Rubber, Inc. (80% owned by Siam Tyre, 20% by Philtread), and the land was sold to another company (60% owned by Philtread, 40% by Siam Tyre). The Union was informed of the purchase. Petitioner MSF asked the Union to desist from picketing and removing banners outside the plant. The Union refused. Consequently, petitioner filed a complaint for injunction with damages against the Union and its officers before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati. The RTC initially denied the application for injunction but later reconsidered and granted a writ of preliminary injunction. The Union filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Court of Appeals without first filing a motion for reconsideration of the RTC’s injunctive order. The Court of Appeals granted the Union’s petition, set aside the RTC’s order, and directed the dismissal of the civil case for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner MSF now seeks review of the Court of Appeals’ decision.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Union’s failure to disclose the pendency of a related case (NCMB-NCR-NS-05-167-96) in its certification of non-forum shopping and its failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the RTC’s order were fatal to its petition before the Court of Appeals.
2. Whether petitioner MSF has shown a clear legal right to the issuance of a writ of injunction under the “innocent bystander” rule.

RULING

1. No, the Union’s procedural omissions were not fatal. The Court found petitioner’s argument regarding the false certification of non-forum shopping without merit. The petition before the Court of Appeals was a direct response to petitioner’s own action in seeking injunction from the RTC when relief could have been sought from the Secretary of Labor. The Court noted that petitioner’s own certification before the RTC similarly omitted mention of the pending labor case. Regarding the failure to file a motion for reconsideration, the Court ruled that no such motion was required because the RTC’s injunctive order was a patent nullity, issued without jurisdiction. Where an order is null and void, a motion for reconsideration is unnecessary.
2. No, petitioner MSF did not have a clear legal right to the injunction and was not an “innocent bystander.” The Court applied the “innocent bystander” rule, which states that a third person with no connection to a labor dispute may be entitled to an injunction against picketing that is causing it irreparable injury. However, the rule does not apply if the third person is involved in the dispute or is an ally of the employer. The Court found that petitioner MSF was not an innocent bystander. The transaction that created MSF was entered into during the pendency of the labor dispute. Philtread retained a 20% interest in MSF and a 60% interest in the corporation that owned the land where the plant stood. The Union’s picketing was directed at MSF due to this connection. Since petitioner was not an innocent bystander, the labor dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Secretary of Labor and the National Labor Relations Commission. Consequently, the RTC had no jurisdiction to issue the writ of injunction. The Court of Appeals correctly set aside the RTC’s order.
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals.