G.R. No.

L-29630 July 2, 1981

PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL BANK, plaintiff-appellant,

vs.
PHILNABANK EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION, ROMEO G. ROY, DALUYONG GABRIEL, BAYANI
A. BAUTISTA, DOMINGO VILLANUEVA, ALEJANDRO RICARDO, JESUS MANAHAN, MANUEL
JACINTO, ERNESTO BATAC, LEONIDO CASPE PATRICIA GRANADOS and PANTALEON
BERNARDO, defendants-appellees.

Facts:

Philippine Commercial Bank filed an action for libel against the union Philippine National
Bank Employees' Association. They claimed that the union used libelous placards which displayed
the text “PCIB BAD ACCOUNTS TRANSFERRED TO PNB-NIDC?.” Plaintiff considered the above
"defamatory and libelous per se for at the very least [it] amounts to an "act tending to cause
dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a juridical person.” Defendant claims that it a fair, legal labor
strategy denouncing the lack of business foresight, incompetence, mismanagement, arbitrary and
despotic acts of the Management to heed the legal and legitimate demands of the defendants, as a
striking union, and against whom a strike was declared against the management of the Philippine
National Bank".

The lower courts ruled in favor of the union. They found that the imputations were not
libelous and that the company was not able to prove the damages sustained by them by reason of
the statements of the union.

Issue:

Whether or not the placards can be considered libelous

Held:

No. Aside from the failure to prove that the statements caused direct damage to the
reputation of the company, it must be kept in mind that these statements are part of a labor strike.
The Labor Union was making use of its constitutional right to picket which is a part of their right to
freedom of speech.

It is a fact of industrial life that in the continuing confrontation between labor and
management, it is far from likely that the language employed would be both courteous and polite.
Such being the case, there is no affront either to reason or to the law in the complaint for libel being
dismissed.

In no uncertain terms, it made clear that the judiciary, in deciding suits for libel, must
ascertain whether or not the alleged offending words may be embraced by the guarantees of free
speech and free press.
NESTLÉ PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, EUGENIA C. NUNEZ, LIZA T. VILLANUEVA,
EMMANUEL S. VILLENA, RUDOLPH C. ARMAS, RODOLFO M. KUA and RODOLFO A.
SOLIDUM, respondents.

Facts:

The Private Respondents were employed by Nestle as sales or medical representatives.

With this, they were allowed to avail of the company’s car loan policy. Through the loan, the
company will deduct monthly amounts from the salary of the employee concerned. Ownership is
transferred only upon complete payment of the purchase price.

The employees, however, were dismissed due to their participation in an illegal strike. They
were asked through the dismissal notice to either pay for the remaining balance of the car or return
such to the company. The employees chose neither option.

The company responded by filing a suit in the RTC to recover the cars. Employees chose to
ask the NLRC, where their illegal dismissal case was pending, for a TRO to stop the cancellation of
the car loans.

The NLRC ordered the TRO, hence this current petition by the company.

Issue:

Whether or not the NLRC has jurisdiction to order a labor injunction when the case on the car is a
civil case for recovery

- Was there a Labor Dispute to justify the order of the NLRC?

Held:

No. The NLRC’s power to enjoin or restrain prohibited or unlawful acts can only be exercised
in the existence of a labor dispute. Article 212 of the Labor Code defines Labor Dispute as:

"Labor dispute" includes any controversy or matters concerning terms or conditions of employment
or the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or
arranging the terms and conditions of employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in the
proximate relation of employer and employee.

Nestlé's demand for payment of the private respondents' amortizations on their car loans, or, in the
alternative, the return of the cars to the company, is not a labor, but a civil, dispute. It involves
debtor-creditor relations, rather than employee-employer relations. The company is merely asking
the employees to pay the amount or return the car; such questions do not involve the relevance of
the employment status of the employees.