Case Digest (G.R. No. 75736)
Facts:
Associated Labor Unions (ALU-TUCP) v. Hon. Antonio V. Borromeo and Belyca Corporation, G.R. No. 75736, September 29, 1988, the Supreme Court Second Division, Sarmiento, J., writing for the Court.
The petitioner, Associated Labor Unions (ALU-TUCP) (for and in behalf of its direct members including Warren Maputi, Rodrigo Catipay, Gilberto Redoblado, Roberto Ronolo and others), filed a notice of strike with the Ministry of Labor and Employment, Region X, on June 24, 1986, and thereafter a complaint on July 2, 1986 alleging various labor offenses against Belyca Corporation, a livestock farming firm. The union commenced a strike on July 24, 1986.
On July 24, 1986, Belyca Corporation filed a civil action for injunction with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), alleging that the striking workers obstructed ingress to its premises and thereby prevented feeding of approximately 7,500 hogs and 8,000 fowls, which it claimed would die if not attended to. On the same day the RTC issued an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO) commanding the defendants (the striking workers), their agents and representatives to allow free passage for feeding Belyca’s animals.
The petitioner moved on August 4, 1986 to lift the TRO and to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction; the RTC denied the motion on August 14, 1986. Also on August 14, 1986, Belyca moved to extend the TRO for another twenty days; the petitioner opposed, but on August 19, 1986 the RTC granted an extension that—by its own erroneous computation—set the TRO’s expiration at October 2, 1986. The petitioner then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by a petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking relief against the RTC orders.
The Supreme Court ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Regional Trial Court have jurisdiction to entertain the civil action and issue a TRO in the labor dispute between ALU-TUCP and Belyca Corporation?
- Did the issuance and the subsequent extension of the TRO constitute grave abuse of discretion and a denial of due process?
- Could the trial court properly intervene to protect perishable livestock (and seek military assistance) notwithstanding the exclusiv...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)