Injunctive Powers of the NLRC, Regular Court re: Strikes, Lockouts


The NLRC enjoys a legal grant of injunctive power under the Labor Code. On the other hand, regular courts are not allowed to issue writs of injunction in cases of strikes or lockouts. This is the general rule. Associated Labor Unions v. Hon. Borromeo (G.R. No. 75736; September 29, 1988) provides a very useful and informative discussion on this issue of injunctive powers. 

On June 24, 1986, as a consequence of a controversy arising from charges of unfair labor practice against the private respondent, Belyca Corporation, a firm engaged in livestock farming, the petitioner filed a notice of strike with the then Ministry of Labor. Later, it filed a complaint for various offenses against the private respondent ranging from unfair labor practice to non-payment of the minimum wages. A strike was later engaged in.

During the strike, on the same day, the company commenced suit for injunction with the RTC. It alleged that the petitioner had obstructed free ingress to the firm's premises, “preventing workers of Belyca farms from entering the business establishments . . . preventing said workers from giving feeds and/or food to the hogs and fowls which would kill all of said hogs and fowls if not attended to this very day . . . ” In a few hours, the RTC issued a TRO “commanding [the striking workers], their agents and/or representatives to allow [the company] or [its] workers or authorized representatives free passage to and from Belyca Farms, located at Kalasungay Malaybalay, Bukidnon to feed plaintiff’s seven thousand five hundred (7,500) hogs and eight thousand (8,000) fowls. ”

The [striking workers] filed a motion for reconsideration (to lift TRO as well as for the dismissal of the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction) . The RTC, however, denied the motion. The TRO was later extended for another 20 days “for the sake of justice and fairness.” 
The Supreme Court emphasized that the RTC acted without power, pointing out the following justifications:

[1] The courts of law have no jurisdiction to act on labor cases or various incidents arising therefrom. That is basic and elementary. Jurisdiction to try and adjudicate such cases pertains exclusively to the proper labor officials of the Department of Labor, particularly the Labor Arbiter under Article 217 of the Labor Code.
[2] Well-established jurisprudence is to the effect that the regular courts have no jurisdiction.
[3] The reason for such exclusive jurisdiction is that since picketing and strikes may be mere incidents or consequences of an unfair labor practice, it is but proper that a Writ of Injunction prayed for in connection with that labor dispute originate from the [labor] court having jurisdiction over the main case inasmuch as it is that [labor] court that has cognizance of all relevant facts.
[4] The respondent judge cannot enjoin acts carried out as a consequence of the strike without unavoidably ruling on the legality of the strike itself. (“The strike can continue. It does not mean that this Court has ruled on the legality or illegality of the said strike. ”) To say indeed that the workers had obstructed free passage to the strike-bound firm, is, by necessity, to say that the strike was illegal, notwithstanding the judge's own words of caution (that he was not ruling on the legality or illegality of the strike). For under the Labor Code: “(E) No person engaged in picketing shall commit any act of violence, coercion, or intimidation or obstruct the free ingress to or egress from the employer's premises for lawful purposes, or obstruct public thoroughfares.”