G.R. No. L-30675 September 30, 1982
HAWAIIAN-PHILIPPINE COMPANY, petitioner, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and CONGRESS OF INDEPENDENT ORGANIZATIONS (CIO), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Hawaiian-Philippine Company filed a petition with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) to declare a strike by respondent union illegal and sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent the union from blocking entrances to its premises. The trial judge issued an ex parte TRO on May 10, 1968, and later, after a hearing, issued a preliminary injunction on July 12, 1968, enjoining the picketing. The respondent union moved for reconsideration.
The CIR en banc, by majority vote, resolved to dissolve and set aside the trial judge’s orders. It held that the case involved a labor dispute and that the issuance of the TRO and injunction did not comply with the strict requirements of Section 9(d) of Republic Act No. 875 (The Industrial Peace Act). The company elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via a petition for review.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial judge correctly issued the restraining order and preliminary injunction against the picketing based on Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, or whether the special provisions of R.A. 875 governing injunctions in labor disputes should control.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld the CIR en banc resolution. The Court ruled that a labor dispute undeniably existed between the parties. This was evidenced by prior unfair labor practice cases filed by the union against the company and the pending petition for certification election. Given the existence of a labor dispute, the issuance of any injunctive relief is strictly governed by Section 9(d) of R.A. 875, not by the general provisions of Rule 58 of the Rules of Court.
The trial judge’s orders were void for non-compliance with the mandatory safeguards of the labor law. The TRO issued on May 10, 1968, was unlawful because it was issued ex parte without the required finding that a substantial and irreparable injury would be unavoidable without it, it failed to state it was effective for no longer than five days, and no bond was required from the company. The subsequent preliminary injunction was also improperly issued as the hearing did not include the testimony of law enforcement officers, a specific requirement under the statute for determining the necessity of protection. The Court emphasized that in labor disputes, the provisions of R.A. 875 must be strictly followed to protect the rights of labor. The writ of preliminary injunction previously issued by the Supreme Court was dissolved.