NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. HON. AUGUSTO S. SANCHEZ, MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT AND THE UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES, RESPONDENTS.

During the period July
8-10, 1987, respondent in G.R. No. 75029, Union of Filipro Employees, and
petitioner in G.R. No. 78791, Kimberly
Independent Labor Union for Solidarity, Activism and Nationalism-Olalia, intensified the intermittent pickets they had been
conducting since June 17, 1987
in front of the Padre Faura gate of the Supreme Court
building.  They set up pickets’ quarters
on the pavement in front of the Supreme Court building, at times obstructing
access to and egress from the Court’s premises and offices of justices,
officials and employees.  They
constructed provisional shelters along the sidewalks, set up a kitchen and littered
the place with food containers and trash in utter disregard of proper hygiene and
sanitation.  They waved their red
streamers and placards with slogans, and took turns haranguing the court all
day long with the use of loudspeakers.

These acts were done even after their leaders had been received
by Justices Pedro L. Yap and
Marcelo B. Fernan as Chairman of the Divisions where their cases are pending, and Atty.
Jose C. Espinas, counsel of the Union of Filipro
Employees, had been called in order that the pickets might be informed that the
demonstration must cease immediately for the same constitutes direct contempt
of court and that the Court would not entertain their
petitions for as long as the pickets were maintained.  Thus, on July 10, 1987, the Court en banc
issued a resolution giving the said unions the opportunity to withdraw graciously
and requiring Messrs. Tony Avelino, Lito Payabyab, Eugene San Pedro,
Dante Escasura, Emil Sayao
and Nelson Centeno, union leaders of respondent Union
of Filipro Employees in the Nestle case and their
counsel of record, Atty. Jose C. Espinas; and Messrs.
Ernesto Facundo, Fausto Gapuz, Jr. and Antonio Gonzales, union leaders of
petitioner Kimberly Independent Labor Union for Solidarity, Activism and
Nationalism-Olalia in the Kimberly case to
appear before the Court on July 14, 1987 at 10:30 A.M. and then and there to
SHOW CAUSE why they should not be held in contempt of court.  Atty. Jose C. Espinas
was further required to SHOW CAUSE why he should not be administratively dealt
with.

On the appointed date and time, the above-named individuals
appeared before the Court, represented by Atty. Jose C. Espinas,
in the absence of Atty. Potenciano Flores, counsel of
record of petitioner in G.R. No. 78791, who was still recuperating from an
operation.

Atty. Espinas, for himself and in
behalf of the union leaders concerned, apologized to the Court for the
above-described acts, together with an assurance that they will not be
repeated.  He likewise manifested to the
Court that he had explained to the picketers why their actions were wrong and
that the cited persons were willing to suffer such penalty as may be warranted
under the circumstances.^[1]
He, however, prayed for the Court’s leniency considering that the picket was
actually spearheaded by the leaders of the “Pagkakaisa
ng Manggagawa sa Timog Katagalogan”
(PAMANTIK), an unregistered loose alliance of about seventy-five (75) unions in the
Southern Tagalog area, and not by either the Union of
Filipro Employees or the Kimberly Independent Labor
Union.^[2]

Atty. Espinas further stated that he
had explained to the picketers that any delay in the resolution of their cases
is usually for causes beyond the control of the Court and that the Supreme
Court has always remained steadfast in its role as the guardian of the
Constitution.

To confirm for the record that the persons cited for contempt
fully understood the reason for the citation and that they will abide by their
promise that said incident will not be repeated,
the Court required the respondents to submit a written manifestation to this
effect, which respondents complied with on July 17, 1987.

We accept the apologies offered by the respondents and at this
time, forego the imposition of the sanction warranted by the contemptuous acts
described earlier.  The liberal stance
taken by this Court in these cases as well as in the earlier case of AHS/PHILIPPINES
EMPLOYEES UNION vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, et al., G.R. No.
73721, March 30, 1987, should not, however, be considered in any other light
than an acknowledgment of the euphoria apparently resulting from the
rediscovery of a long-repressed freedom. 
The Court will not hesitate in future similar situations to apply the
full force of the law and punish for contempt those who attempt to pressure the
Court into acting one way or the other in any case pending before it.  Grievances, if any, must be ventilated
through the proper channels, i.e., through appropriate petitions, motions or
other pleadings in keeping with the respect due to the Courts as impartial
administrators of justice entitled to “proceed to the disposition of its
business in an orderly manner, free from outside interference obstructive of
its functions and tending to embarrass the administration of justice.”^[3]

The right of petition is conceded to be an inherent right of the
citizen under all free governments. 
However, such right, natural and inherent
though it may be, has never been invoked to shatter the standards of propriety entertained for the
conduct of courts.  For “it is a traditional
conviction of civilized society everywhere that courts and juries, in the
decision of issues of fact and law should be immune from every extraneous
influence; that facts should be decided upon evidence produced in court; and
that the determination of such facts should be uninfluenced by bias, prejudice
or sympathies.”^[4]

Moreover, “parties have
a constitutional right to have their causes tried fairly in court by an
impartial tribunal, uninfluenced by publication or public clamor.  Every citizen has a profound personal
interest in the enforcement of the fundamental right to have justice administered
by the courts, under the protection and forms of law free from outside coercion
or interference.”^[5]
The aforecited acts of the respondents are therefore
not only an affront to the dignity of this Court, but equally a violation of the above-stated right of the adverse
parties and the citizenry at large.

We
realize that the individuals herein cited who are non-lawyers are not
knowledgeable in the intricacies of
substantive and adjective laws.  They are
not aware that even as the rights of free speech and of assembly are protected
by the Constitution, any attempt to pressure or influence courts of justice
through the exercise of either right amounts to an abuse thereof is no longer within the ambit of constitutional protection, nor did they realize
that any such efforts to influence the course of justice constitutes contempt
of court.^[6] The duty and responsibility of advising
them, therefore, rest primarily and heavily upon the shoulders of their
counsel of record.  Atty. Jose C. Espinas, when his attention was called by this Court, did
his best to demonstrate to the pickets the untenability
of their acts and posture.  Let this
incident therefore serve as a reminder to all members of the legal profession
that it is their duty as officers of the court to properly apprise their clients on matters of decorum and proper attitude toward
courts of justice, and to labor leaders of the importance of a continuing educational program for their members.

WHEREFORE, the contempt charges against herein
respondents are DISMISSED.  Henceforth,
no demonstrations or pickets intended to pressure or influence courts of
justice into acting one way or the other on pending cases shall be allowed in
the vicinity and/or within the premises of any and all courts.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, C.J., Yap, Fernan, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras,
Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, and Cortes, JJ.,
concur.

Gancayco, J., on leave.

^[1] tsn, July 14, 1987, p. 16

^[2] Ibid., p. 17

^[3] In re Torres, 55 Phil. 799

^[4] In Re Stolen, 216 N.W. 127.

^[5] Cooper vs. People, 13 Colo. 373, cited in In
Re Kelly, 35 Phil. 944.

^[6] In Re Stolen, supra.