79. G Holdings vs National Mines and Allied Workers Union

“G” Holdings, Inc., v. National Mines and an d Allied Workers Union Local 103 (NAMAWU) G.R. No. 160236, October 16, 2009 Facts:

 NAMAWU was the exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of Maricalum Mining Corporation (MMC), an entity operating a copper mine and mill mill complex. MMC was incorporated by the DBP and PNB on account of their foreclosure of MMC’s assets. Later, DBP and PNB transferred it to the National Government for disposition or privatization because it had become a non-performing asset. On October 1992, pursuant to a Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) executed between petitioner and APT,  petitioner brought 90% of MMC’s shares and financial claims. Upon signing of PSA and full f ull satisfaction of the stipulated down payment, petitioner immediately took physical possession of the mine and its facilities and took full control of the management and operation of MMC. Four years after, a labor dispute arose between MMC and NAMAWU with the latter filing with the NCMB of a notice of strike. LA ruled in favor of NAMAWU. It ruled that the lay-off implement by MMC is illegal and it committed ULP. ULP. On petition with with this Court, Court, we sustained the decision of LA. A partial writ writ of execution was issued. The writ was not fully satisfied because of MMC’s resisted its enforcement. On October 2002, GHI filed with RTC a Special Civil Civil Action for Contempt with issuance issuance of TRO. GHI contented that the property were subject of a Deed of Real Estate and Chattel Mortgage executed MMC in favor of  petitioner. RTC issued a TRO. On appeal to CA, CA set aside the RTC issuance of writ. Hence, this petition. Issue:

Whether RTC can validly issued TRO to prevent the execution issued by labor tribunal. Ruling:

It is settled that a RTC can validly issue a TRO and, later, a writ of preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of a writ of execution raised by a labor tribunal on the basis of a third- party’s claim of ownership over the properties levied upon. While, as a rule, no temporary or permanent permanent injunction or restraining order in any case case involving or growing out of a labor dispute shall be issued by any court  –  where   where the writ of execution issued by a labor tribunal is sought to be enforced upon the property of a stranger to the labor dispute, even upon a mere  prima  facie showing of ownership of such claimant  –   a separate action for injunctive relief against such levy may be maintained in court, since said action neither involves nor grows out of labor disputes insofar as the third party is concerned. Petition is granted.