Wednesday, October 03, 2007 Coke appeals to CA: Stop picket
A BEVERAGE firm has asked the Court of Appeals to overturn a lower court’s refusal to stop a group of dismissed workers from going into the picket line.
It wants the appellate court to issue a restraining order to stop the employees from further disrupting their operations.
The Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines Inc. (CCBPI), in a petition addressed to the appellate court, said the dismissed employees weren’t even their workers to begin with.
They said the workers belong to Cosmos Visayas Bottlers Inc. and have nothing to do with Coke’s operation.
Coca-Cola, through lawyer Martin Meñez, said that the lower court was wrong in thinking the matter was labor law-related and outside its jurisdiction, in refusing to stop the workers through a temporary restraining order.
“No labor dispute exists within the meaning, scope and intent of Article 212(L) of the labor code, as amended (and) there is no controversy or matter concerning terms and conditions of employment between petitioner CCBPI and the private respondents,” they said.
“Petitioner is an innocent bystander and, as such, it may seek injunctive relief before the regular court to enjoin the illegal acts committed by the private respondents,” they added.
Employees of the recently closed Cosmos Visayas Bottlers Inc (CVBI) have been picketing outside the Coca-Cola plant in Mandaue City since the last week of September.
The employees, members of the CVBI-Cebu Plant Employees Union, want to prevent Coca-Cola from selling the remaining products of Cosmos, a subsidiary company, until all their labor claims are settled.
The CVBI employees union is affiliated with the Associated Labor Unions-Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (ALU-TUCP).
Coca-Cola filed an injunction case against the union before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) civil division and was granted a 72-hour temporary restraining by Judge Ramon Codilla.
The case was raffled off to Judge Simeon Dumdum Jr., who refused to extend the restraining order, saying his court has no authority to hear labor disputes.
“As shown above, public respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion when he refused to take cognizance of the case when in fact the regular court has jurisdiction and petitioner CCBPI is entitled to the relief prayed for,” the firm argued before the appellate court.
“Serious and irreparable damage and injury will be caused to petitioner CCBPI before the matter can be heard on notice if the commission or continuance of the acts complained of will be left unrestrained,” they added. (KNR)
