Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 205 views

    PAFLU Vs Cloribel

    Uploaded by

    Gillian Caye Geniza Briones
    PAFLU was picketing Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company located in the Wellington Building. Wellington complained that the picketers were blocking the common passageway. Wellington filed a case in court against PAFLU for undue interference with its business and the businesses of other neutral tenants. Judge Cloribel issued a preliminary injunction against the defendants. PAFLU then filed a petition alleging that Judge Cloribel violated requirements for labor injunctions by not requiring a sufficient bond and by prohibiting the union's right to picket. However, the court ruled that while peaceful picketing is protected, the right is not absolute and can be regulated to insulate neutral parties if the picketing creates an impression of a labor dispute with them

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    PAFLU Vs Cloribel

    Uploaded by

    Gillian Caye Geniza Briones
    205 views1 page
    PAFLU was picketing Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company located in the Wellington Building. Wellington complained that the picketers were blocking the common passageway. Wellington filed a case in court against PAFLU for undue interference with its business and the businesses of other neutral tenants. Judge Cloribel issued a preliminary injunction against the defendants. PAFLU then filed a petition alleging that Judge Cloribel violated requirements for labor injunctions by not requiring a sufficient bond and by prohibiting the union's right to picket. However, the court ruled that while peaceful picketing is protected, the right is not absolute and can be regulated to insulate neutral parties if the picketing creates an impression of a labor dispute with them

    Original Description:

    Labor

    Original Title

    PAFLU vs Cloribel

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    PAFLU was picketing Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company located in the Wellington Building. Wellington complained that the picketers were blocking the common passageway. Wellington filed a case in court against PAFLU for undue interference with its business and the businesses of other neutral tenants. Judge Cloribel issued a preliminary injunction against the defendants. PAFLU then filed a petition alleging that Judge Cloribel violated requirements for labor injunctions by not requiring a sufficient bond and by prohibiting the union's right to picket. However, the court ruled that while peaceful picketing is protected, the right is not absolute and can be regulated to insulate neutral parties if the picketing creates an impression of a labor dispute with them

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    205 views1 page

    PAFLU Vs Cloribel

    Uploaded by

    Gillian Caye Geniza Briones
    PAFLU was picketing Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company located in the Wellington Building. Wellington complained that the picketers were blocking the common passageway. Wellington filed a case in court against PAFLU for undue interference with its business and the businesses of other neutral tenants. Judge Cloribel issued a preliminary injunction against the defendants. PAFLU then filed a petition alleging that Judge Cloribel violated requirements for labor injunctions by not requiring a sufficient bond and by prohibiting the union's right to picket. However, the court ruled that while peaceful picketing is protected, the right is not absolute and can be regulated to insulate neutral parties if the picketing creates an impression of a labor dispute with them

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    PAFLU vs.

    Judge Cloribel CFI Manila; Wellington Investment and Manufacturing Corporation; and
    Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company
    G.R. No. L-25878, March 28, 1969

    Facts:

     This is a case wherein picketed by {AFLU was Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, located at the ground
    floor of the Wellington Building.
     Wellington complained
    o That the picketers were annoyingly blocking the common passageway of the building
     Wellington commenced a litigation in court for the picketing of PAFLU and some 24 named individuals and
    25 John Does, who were employees of neither the corporation nor any of its tenant occupying the second to
    the sixth floors of the building of undue interference not only with its enjoyment of its property and business
    of leasing and administering the same but also with the businesses of said neutral tenants – Injunction
    granted
     Immediately thereafter, PAFLU filed the present petition
    o Alleging that the respondent Judge Cloribel acted with GADALEJ in issuing the injunction, in
    violation of the strict jurisdictional requirements on labor injunctions
    o And neither was there a bond filed by Wellington sufficient to recompense those enjoined for any
    loss, expense, or damage caused by the improvident or erroneous issuance of the same order
    o Such omissions, coupled with grave injustice occasioned by said restraining order allegedly
    prohibiting, in effect the union’s right to picket Metrobank’s premises
    o A case for ULP had already been filed in the CIR

    Picketed by PAFLU was Metropolitans Bank and Trust Company (METBANK for brevity) located at the
    ground floor of the Wellington Building.  Wellington complained, however, that the picketers were annoyingly blocking
    the common passageway of the building.
    Wellington commenced a litigation charging in court the picketing of PAFLU of undue interference not only
    with its enjoyment of its property and business but also with the business of the neutral tenants. And as prayed for by
    Wellington, Judge Cloribel issued a writ of preliminary injunction against the defendants.

    ISSUE: Does the writ of injunction violates the worker’s right to picket as a means of communicating labor dispute
    guaranteed by the constitution? NO

    RULING:

    No. 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 is not an absolute one. While peaceful picketing is entitled to protection as an
    exercise of free speech, 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.

    You might also like