G.R. No. 180962 - Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. vs. Philtranco Workers Union - Association of Genuine Labor Organizations

Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc., a local land transportation company, was suffering business losses and consequently undertook retrenchment measures.
As a result of the retrenchment, 21 employees were laid off, which included 17 union officers whose termination was challenged as illegal by the union.

The union, Philtranco Workers Union-Association of Genuine Labor Organizations (PWU-AGLU), filed a Notice of Strike with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), alleging that the retrenchment constituted unfair labor practices.
The case was initially docketed at the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) and later referred to the DOLE which filed it as Case No. OS-VA-2007-008.

Acting DOLE Secretary Danilo P. Cruz issued a decision on June 13, 2007, directing:

The reinstatement of the illegally terminated union officers without loss of seniority and payment of backwages (with appropriate deductions for separation pay already rendered).
The maintenance of the status quo under the existing collective bargaining agreement (CBA) particularly concerning salaries, wages, and medical benefits until a new agreement was reached.
The immediate remittance of the withheld union dues to PWU-AGLU.

The petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration on June 25, 2007, seeking correction of the Administrative Decision.
Meanwhile, PWU-AGLU submitted a Partial Appeal regarding the matter.
In an August 15, 2007 Order, the Acting Secretary of Labor declined to rule on the petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration, citing a DOLE regulation that barred motions for reconsideration in voluntary arbitration cases.
The petitioner’s attempt to seek further remedy via a Petition for Certiorari was initiated by filing before the Court of Appeals (CA) on August 29, 2007.

On September 20, 2007, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari, holding that:

The petitioner erred by seeking certiorari under Rule 65 instead of the petition for review under Rule 43, as the matter involved a decision of a voluntary labor arbitrator.
The Petition for Certiorari was filed out of time because the unauthorized Motion for Reconsideration did not toll the reglementary 60-day period.

A subsequent CA resolution on December 14, 2007, denied the petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration, reinforcing the procedural deficiencies cited.

The case involved a labor dispute with significant public interest, considering the essential nature of public transportation.
The legal issue centered on whether the DOLE Secretary acted within his plenary authority under Article 263 of the Labor Code, and whether the appropriate remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 was properly availed by the petitioner.

Whether the petitioner’s filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was the proper remedy to challenge the DOLE Secretary’s decision.
Whether the Secretary of Labor’s assumption of jurisdiction, in light of the case’s public interest and its classification under Article 263, permits a review by certiorari even if the decision emanates from a voluntary arbitration setting.

Whether the petition for certiorari was timely filed, especially considering that the unauthorized filing of the Motion for Reconsideration (required as a precondition for seeking certiorari) did not affect the computation of the 60-day period for filing the petition.
Whether the non-tolling of the 60-day period renders the petition technically untimely or if the filing falls within the reglementary period.

Whether dismissing the petition outright based on the alleged erroneous remedy (Rule 65 versus Rule 43) and the technicality of filing deadlines constitutes an abuse of discretion by the Court of Appeals.
Whether such procedural grounds should bar substantive judicial review when an opportunity for administrative correction exists.