G.R. No. 91915 - Divine Word University of Tacloban vs. Secretary of Labor and Employment

On September 6, 1984, Med-Arbiter Bienvenido C. Elorcha certified the Divine Word University Employees Union (DWUEU) as sole and exclusive bargaining agent of Divine Word University (“DWU”).
On March 7, 1985, DWUEU submitted collective bargaining agreement (CBA) proposals. DWU replied on March 26, 1985, proposing a preliminary conference for May 28, 1985. Two days before the conference, DWUEU’s resigning vice-president wrote to withdraw the proposals, leading to cancellation of the May 28 meeting.

On March 11, 1988, now affiliated with the Associated Labor Union (ALU), DWUEU-ALU requested a conference to resume collective bargaining. A follow-up letter was sent March 23, 1988. DWU did not respond.
On April 25, 1988, DWUEU-ALU filed a notice of strike alleging bargaining deadlock and unfair labor practices (ULPs). Conciliation conferences ensued, resulting on May 10, 1988, in an agreement to: (a) renew CBA proposals by May 13; (b) determine bargaining-unit composition; (c) suspend conciliation temporarily; (d) settle discrimination issues; (e) continue dialogue on coercion/refusal to bargain; and (f) give legal counsel notice of further meetings. One hour before this agreement, DWU filed a petition for certification election. On May 19, 1988, the union submitted new proposals, which DWU ignored.

On August 25, 1988, Secretary of Labor Franklin M. Drilon, under Art. 263(g) of the Labor Code, assumed jurisdiction over the dispute, ordered strikers to return to work, designated NCMB to hear the case, and directed DWU to rehire employees. On the same day Med-Arbiter Rodolfo S. Milado ordered a certification election.
On September 20, 1988, the Labor Secretary enjoined Milado from proceeding with the election, citing this Court’s “Bulletin Today” doctrine against split proceedings.
NCMB hearings were held October 17–18, 1988; Divine Word University Independent Faculty and Employees Union (DWUIFEU) moved to intervene.
On May 23, 1989, Secretary Drilon consolidated (“subsumed”) all related cases—certification-election petition, ULP complaints (NLRC Cases Nos. 8-0321-88 and 8-0323-88)—and ruled that:

A bargaining deadlock existed and precluded an election.
DWUEU-ALU’s and DWU’s ULP cases lacked merit.
DWU must adopt the union’s May 19, 1988 CBA proposals; undue delay would be an ULP.

DWU moved for reconsideration. Meanwhile, on May 5, 1989, DWUEU-ALU filed a second strike notice. Multiple conciliation conferences in July 1989 failed due to DWU’s non-appearance. DWUEU-ALU pursued its second strike on November 24, 1989.
On November 28, 1989, DWU sought DOLE jurisdiction or certification to NLRC; students urged DOLE assumption. On December 29, 1989, Secretary Drilon reiterated assumption of jurisdiction, subsumed the second strike, and enjoined parties from aggravating relations.
On January 17, 1990, Acting Secretary Dionisio D. de la Serna denied DWU’s motion for reconsideration, affirmed the May 23, 1989 order, declared DWU in default for bad-faith bargaining, and imposed the union’s May 19, 1988 proposals motu proprio.

Did the Secretary of Labor abuse his discretion or exceed jurisdiction by issuing the May 23, 1989 and January 17, 1990 orders?
In the absence of a registered CBA and with more than five years since the last certification election, was a new certification election mandatory?
Did the assailed orders disregard evidence, statutory provisions, and established jurisprudence, and result in denial of due process?