ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
January-1957 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-9542 January 11, 1957 - PLARIDEL SURETY & INSURANCE CO. v. P. L. GALANG MACHINERY CO.

    100 Phil 679

  • G.R. Nos. L-10360 & L-10433 January 17, 1957 - JULIANO A. ALBA v. JOSE D. EVANGELISTA

    100 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. L-7909 January 18, 1957 - CIPRIANO E UNSON v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

    100 Phil 695

  • G.R. No. L-9704 January 18, 1957 - LORENZO LLANOS v. CLAUDIO SIMBORIO, ET AL.

    100 Phil 707

  • G.R. No. L-8346 January 22, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PROCESO BINSOL

    100 Phil 713

  • G.R. No. L-8645 January 23, 1957 - PORT MOTORS v. FELIPE RAPOSAS

    100 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. L-8896 January 23, 1957 - EARNSHAW DOCKS & HONOLULU IRON WORKS v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    100 Phil 742

  • G.R. No. L-9660 January 23, 1957 - FIDEL AMANTE v. JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ

    100 Phil 748

  • G.R. No. L-9442 January 28, 1957 - URBANA D. ANZURES v. FIDEL IBAÑEZ

    100 Phil 752

  • G.R. No. L-8169 January 29, 1957 - SHELL COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FIREMEN’S INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEWARK

    100 Phil 757

  • G.R. No. L-9044 January 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PONCIANO ARPON

    100 Phil 765

  • G.R. No. L-9507 January 29, 1957 - GONZALO N. RUBIC v. Auditor General

    100 Phil 772

  • G.R. No. L-9633 January 29, 1957 - EMILIO SORIANO v. ANTONIO ASI

    100 Phil 785

  • G.R. No. L-7586 January 30, 1957 - NARCISA B. DE LEON v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION

    100 Phil 789

  • G.R. No. L-8613 January 30, 1957 - LA MALLORCA TAXI v. ROMAN GUANLAO

    100 Phil 792

  • G.R. No. L-9195 January 30, 1957 - CITY OF MANILA v. MANILA REMNANT CO.

    100 Phil 796

  • G.R. No. L-9621 January 30, 1957 - ANG BENG v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

    100 Phil 801

  • G.R. No. L-9666 January 30, 1957 - STANDARD-VACUUM OIL CO. v. KATIPUNAN LABOR UNION

    100 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. L-7030 January 31, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HILARIO MENDOVA

    100 Phil 811

  • G.R. No. L-7846 January 31, 1957 - RAFAEL LITAM v. REMEDIOS ESPIRITU

    100 Phil 819

  • G.R. No. L-8685 January 31, 1957 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. AURELIO P. REYES, ET AL.

    100 Phil 822

  • G.R. No. L-8960 January 31, 1957 - GERONIMO DE LOS REYES v. MARIA B. CASTRO

    100 Phil 831

  • G.R. No. L-9126 January 31, 1957 - ASIA BED FACTORY v. NATIONAL BED AND KAPOK INDUSTRIES WORKERS’ UNION

    100 Phil 837

  • G.R. No. L-10058 January 31, 1957 - SEVERO ASUNCION v. JUAN BENALISA

    100 Phil 840

  • G.R. No. L-10998 January 31, 1957 - BERNARDINO O. ALMEDA v. FERNANDO SILVOSA, ET AL.

    100 Phil 844

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-7586   January 30, 1957 - NARCISA B. DE LEON v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION<br /><br />100 Phil 789

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-7586. January 30, 1957.]

    NARCISA B. DE LEON, LVN PICTURES INC., SAMPAGUITA PICTURES, INC., LEBRAN PICTURES, INC., AND PREMIER PICTURES, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION, EULOGIO R. LERUM, JOSE HERNANDEZ, ALEJANDRO BARTOLOME, NICOLAS CARRERA, JOSE RAMOS, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

    Nicanor S. Sison for Appellants.

    Eulogio R. Lerum for Appellees.


    SYLLABUS


    1. PICKETING; ABSENCE OF EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP DOES NOT MAKE PICKETING ILLEGAL. — Picketing peacefully carried out is not illegal even in the absence of employer-employee relationship, for peaceful picketing is a part of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution.


    D E C I S I O N


    PADILLA, J.:


    Plaintiffs sought to recover damages and an injunctive relief in the court below which was issued preliminarily upon compliance with the provisions of the rules on the matter, upon the ground that the defendants, with the exception of the National Labor Union, Eulogio R Lerum and Jose J. Hernandez, the latter two being the president and secretary of the union, had been picketing the Dalisay Theater, owned by Narcisa B. de Leon and ran and operated by her co-plaintiffs, since the time it was reopened on 10 January 1952, the purpose of the picketing being to secure reinstatement to their respective jobs in the theater when it was run and operated by the Filipino Theatrical Enterprises, then a lessee of the parcel of land owned by plaintiff Narcisa B. de Leon on which the theater was erected, since 14, April 1949.

    The defendants denied the allegations in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the amended complaint and filed a cross-claim for damages estimated at P200 daily which was denied by the plaintiffs in their reply.

    After hearing the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint and the defendants’ cross-claim and dissolved the writ of preliminary injunction theretofore issued without pronouncement as to costs. From this judgment the plaintiffs appealed to this Court for the reason that the appeal would raise only questions of law. The first amended complaint was again amended but the allegation of the second amended complaint, mistakenly entitled "first a ended complaint," is substantially the same as the previous one.

    The trial court found:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    The plaintiff Narcisa B. de Leon is the owner of a parcel of land in which stands the Dalisay Theater at 617-619 Rizal Avenue Manila; that prior to April 14, 1949, said theater was operated jointly by the motion picture firms known as the plaintiffs LVN Pictures, Inc., Premier Productions and the Sampaguita Picture Inc., as lessees thereof; that on April 14, 1943, Narcisa B. de Leon leased the aforesaid parcel of land to the Filipino Theatrical Enterprise, Inc., who on that date had become the owners of the building, known as Dalisay Theater; that the lease contract provided that the lessor of the land, Narcisa B. de Leon, would become the owner of the building, together with all the equipment and accessories, at the expiration of the lease, that during the terms of the lease, beginning April 14, 1949, the Filipino Theatrical Enterprises, Inc., operated the theater, that defendants, except the National Labor Union, Eulogio Lerum and José Hernandez, were all employees of the Filipino Theatrical Enterprises, Inc., from April 1949 to August 14, 1951, and said employees worked at the Dalisay Theater during this period by reason of such employment; that on July 12, 1951, shortly before the expiration of the aforesaid lease, the Filipino Theatrical Enterprises, Inc., notified its employees of the termination of their employment with it, effective August 14, 1951; that 011 August 15, 1951, after the expiration of said lease, the full and complete possession of the theater building was delivered and turned over to the plaintiff Narcisa B. de Leon who immediately demolished the building and on the same site she constructed and finished, after several months of continuous work the new Dalisay Theater Building; that on August 31, 1951, plaintiff Narcisa B. de Leon executed a contract with her co-plaintiffs for the operation of the new Dalisay Theater as a joint venture among them, whereby the latter would exhibit their pictures in said theater; that on January 10, 1952, plaintiffs opened the new Dalisay Theater and began exhibiting films there, with a new set of personnel, retaining only the services of four old employees; that on the last-mentioned date when plaintiffs reopened the Dalisay Theater for business about thirty persons among whom were the herein defendants, except the defendants Eulogio Lerum and Jose Hernandez, all members of the National Labor Union, picketed the plaintiffs at the said theater on 617-619 Rizal Avenue, Manila, from 9:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., more or less, by walking to and from on the sidewalk fronting the lobby of the theater and displaying placards which bore the slogans: "Do not patronize the Dalisay Theater," "Dalisay Theater is unfair to labor." "Have mercy on the picketeers" "and Symphatize with us," and others; that defendants during the picketing tried to persuade patrons or customers of the Dalisay Theater to refrain from buying tickets or seeing the show because the cine’s management is unfair to its employees, and to sympathize with the picketeers; that after the defendants Jose Ramos and Enrique Montoya had left the lobby of the theater, the iron grill door which separates the theater lobby from the sidewalk was closed, thereby confining the picketing in the sidewalk; that the picketing was done by defendants so that they might be re-employed in the Dalisay Theater; that due to the picketing at the Dalisay Theater, the box office receipts of said theater for January 10, 1952, amounted only to about P1,250; and that a premier showing of such a film like "DIMAS" would ordinarily earn a P2,500 gross receipt for the theater.

    The Court finds that the acts of the defendants complained of in this case, which consisted only in walking slowly and peacefully back and forth on the public sidewalk in front of the premises of the Dalisay Theater and displaying placards publicizing the dispute between the theater management and the picketeers, were not such as to disturb the public peace at the place. There was no clear and present danger of destruction to life or property or of other forms of breach of the peace.

    In this case, it is undisputed that after defendants were missed or laid off from their work at the old Dalisay Theater by the Filipino Theatrical Enterprises, Inc., the showhouse came under a totally different management when it was reopened on January 10, 1952. There was no existence of a relationship of employers and employees between plaintiffs and defendants, though defendants’ purpose in picketing plaintiffs was for defendants’ reinstatement of their services in the new Dalisay Theater under the new Management. . . .

    Picketing peacefully carried out is not illegal even in absence of employer-employee relationship 1 for peaceful picketing is a part of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution. 2

    The judgment appealed from is affirm without pronouncement as to costs.

    Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L. Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

    Reyes, A., J., concurs in the result.

    Endnotes:



    1. Senn v. Tile Protective Union, 301 U.S. 468; Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88; American Federation of Labor v. Swing, 312 U.S. 321; Bridge v. California, 314 U. S. 252; Bakery and Pastry Drivers v. Wohl, 315 U. S. 769; Cafeteria Employees Union v. Angelos, 320 U. S. 293; Shelley v. Kramer, 334 U. S. 1.

    2. Mortem v. Court of Industrial Relations, 45 Off. Gaz. 1714, 1719; Thornhill v. Alabama, supra; American Federation of Labor v. Swing, supra; Bakery & Pastry Drivers v. Wohl, supra; Cafeteria Employees Union v. Angeles, supra.

    G.R. No. L-7586   January 30, 1957 - NARCISA B. DE LEON v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION<br /><br />100 Phil 789


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED