MSF Tire and Rubber Inc V CA

MSF Tire and Rubber, Inc. v.
CA and Philtread Tire Workers’ Union

G.R. No. 128632, August 5, 1999
Facts:
Respondent Union filed a notice of strike in the NCMB charging (Phildtread) with unfair labor
practice. Thereafter, they picketed and assembled outside the gate of Philtread’s plant.
Philtread, on the other hand, filed a notice of lockout. Subsequently, the Secretary of Labor
assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute and certified it for compulsory arbitration.
During the pendency of the labor dispute, Philtread entered into a Memorandum of Agreement
with Siam Tyre whereby its plant and equipment would be sold to a new company, herein
petitioner, 80% of which would be owned by Siam Tyre and 20% by Philtread, while the land on
which the plant was located would be sold to another company, 60% of which would be owned
by Philtread and 40% by Siam Tyre.
Petitioner then asked respondent Union to desist from picketing outside its plant. As the
respondent Union refused petitioner’s request, petitioner filed a complaint for injunction with
damages before the RTC. Respondent Union moved to dismiss the complaint alleging lack of
jurisdiction on the part of the trial court.
Petitioner asserts that its status as an “innocent bystander” with respect to the labor dispute
between Philtread and the Union entitles it to a writ of injunction from the civil courts.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner has shown a clear legal right to the issuance of a writ of injunction
under the “innocent bystander” rule
Ruling:
NO. In Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) v. Cloribel, this Court, through
Justice J.B.L. Reyes, stated the “innocent bystander” rule as follows:
The right to picket as a means of communicating the facts of a labor dispute is a phase of the
freedom of speech guaranteed by the constitution. If peacefully carried out, it cannot be
curtailed even in the absence of employer-employee relationship.
The right is, however, not an absolute one. While peaceful picketing is entitled to protection as
an exercise of free speech, we believe the courts are not without power to confine or localize
the sphere of communication or the demonstration to the parties to the labor dispute,
including those with related interest, and to insulate establishments or persons with no
industrial connection or having interest totally foreign to the context of the dispute. Thus the
right may be regulated at the instance of third parties or “innocent bystanders” if it appears
that the inevitable result of its exercise is to create an impression that a labor dispute with
which they have no connection or interest exists between them and the picketing union or
constitute an invasion of their rights.
Thus, an “innocent bystander,” who seeks to enjoin a labor strike, must satisfy the court it is
entirely different from, without any connection whatsoever to, either party to the dispute and,
therefore, its interests are totally foreign to the context thereof.
In the case at bar, petitioner cannot be said not to have such connection to the dispute. We find
that the “negotiation, contract of sale, and the post transaction” between Philtread, as vendor,
and Siam Tyre, as vendee, reveals a legal relation between them which, in the interest of
petitioner, we cannot ignore. To be sure, the transaction between Philtread and Siam Tyre, was
not a simple sale whereby Philtread ceased to have any proprietary rights over its sold assets.
On the contrary, Philtread remains as 20% owner of private respondent and 60% owner of
Sucat Land Corporation which was likewise incorporated in accordance with the terms of the
Memorandum of Agreement with Siam Tyre, and which now owns the land were subject plant
is located. This, together with the fact that private respondent uses the same plant or factory;
similar or substantially the same working conditions; same machinery, tools, and equipment;
and
manufacture the same products as Philtread, lead us to safely conclude that private
respondent’s personality is so closely linked to Philtread as to bar its entitlement to an
injunctive writ.
Petition denied.

MSF Tire and Rubber Inc V CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MSF Tire and Rubber Inc V CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MSF Tire and Rubber Inc V CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MSF Tire and Rubber, Inc. v.

CA and Philtread Tire Workers’ Union

You might also like