Philtranco Service Enterprises. v.
Philtranco Workers Union- whose business is imbued with public interest required that the Secretary of
Association of Genuine Labor Organizations
February 26, 2014 | Del Castillo, J.
By: Kat
SUMMARY:
A case between Philtranco and the union that failed at the conciliator-mediator level was
referred to the DOLE Secretary. He ruled in favor of the union, so Philtranco filed MR and
then certiorari. Secretary said nope, should have been Rule 43, not Rule 65.
DOCTRINE:
MR from a decision or resolution of the Secretary, then seasonably file certiorari
within 60 days from denial of the MR. It cannot be said that in taking cognizance
of the case, the Secretary did so in a limited capacity. By referring the case to the
Secretary, the Conciliator-Mediator conceded that the case fell within the
coverage of Art. 263.
FACTS:
Due to business losses, Philtranco, a local land transportation company engaged
in the business of carrying passengers and freight, retrenched 21 of its
employees. The union then filed a notice of strike with the DOLE, claiming that
Philtranco engaged in ULP. They were unable to settle their differences at the
preliminary conference before Conciliator-Mediator Aglibut of the NCMB. The
case was then referred to the Office of the Secretary of the DOLE. Acting DOLE
Secretary Danilo Cruz issued a decision ordering Philtranco to reinstate the
illegally terminated 17 union officers and pay them backwages, maintain the
status quo and remit the withheld union dues to the union.
Philtranco MR'd after receiving the decision, while the union submitted a partial
appeal. The Secretary cited a DOLE Regulation providing that voluntary
arbitrators' decisions, orders, resolutions or awards shall not be the subject of
MRs. Philtranco went to the CA, which held that Philtranco erred in filing a Rule
65 because it should have filed a petition for review under Rule 43, which
covers decisions of voluntary labor arbitrators. Assuming Rule 65 was the
proper remedy, the petition was filed out of time because the MR did not toll the
running of the reglementary 60-day period within which to avail of certiorari.
ISSUES/HELD:
What is the proper remedy to assail the DOLE Acting Secretary's decision?
(CERTIORARI AFTER YOUR MR)
RATIO:
It cannot be said that in taking cognizance of the case, the Secretary did so in a
limited capacity (as a voluntary arbitrator). By referring the case to the
Secretary, the Conciliator-Mediator conceded that the case fell within the
coverage of Art. 263. The impending strike in a public transportation company
Labor assume jurisdiction over the case. By assuming jurisdiction, Art. 263
becomes applicable, any representation to the contrary or that he is deciding the
case in his capacity as a voluntary arbitrator notwithstanding.
It has long been settled that the remedy of an aggrieved party in a decision or
resolution of the Secretary of Labor is to timely file MR as a precondition for any
further or subsequent remedy, and then seasonably file a special civil action for
certiorari under Rule 65. There is no distinction: when the Secretary of Labor
assumes jurisdiction over a labor case in an industry indispensable to national
interest, "he exercises great breadth of discretion" in finding a solution to the
parties’ dispute. Such authority to assume jurisdiction includes and extends to all
questions and controversies arising therefrom. The power is plenary and
discretionary in nature to enable him to effectively and efficiently dispose of the
primary dispute.
National Federation of Labor v. Laguesma: Though appeals from the NLRC to the
Secretary of Labor were eliminated, there are several instances in the Labor Code
and its IRR where an appeal can be filed with the Secretary or the Secretary
issues a ruling, including Art. 263. Though the decisions of the Secretary become
final and executory 10 days after receipt, they can still be certiorari'd even
beyond that period as long as it is within the reglementary period under Rule 65.
It is procedurally feasible as well as practicable that Rule 65 petitions be filed
initially with the CA (St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC). The 60 days should be
counted from the notice of the denial of the motion. The very nature of certiorari
– which is an extraordinary remedy resorted to only in the absence of plain,
available, speedy and adequate remedies in the course of law – requires that the
office issuing the decision or order be given the opportunity to correct itself.
Before certiorari under Rule 65, filing MR is a condition sine qua non to afford an
opportunity for the correction of the error or mistake. Considering that a
decision of the Secretary of Labor is subject to judicial review only through a
special civil action of certiorari and cannot be resorted to without the aggrieved
party having exhausted administrative remedies through MR, the aggrieved
party, must be allowed to move for a reconsideration of the same.
While a government office may prohibit altogether the filing of MR with respect
to its decisions or orders, the fact remains that certiorari inherently requires the
filing of a motion for reconsideration, which is the tangible representation of the
opportunity given to the office to correct itself. Unless it is filed, there could be no
occasion to rectify. Worse, the remedy of certiorari would be unavailing. Having
filed the MR on June 25 after receiving the Acting Secretary's decision on June 14,
it was timely filed but denied. The decision denyingt he MR was received on
August 17 and the certiorari was filed on August 29, well within the 60-day
period.