Case Digest (G.R. No. 180962)
Facts:
In Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. v. Philtranco Workers Union-Association of Genuine Labor Organizations, G.R. No. 180962, February 26, 2014, Supreme Court Second Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court, the petitioner sought review of the Court of Appeals’ resolutions dismissing its petition challenging a Department of Labor and Employment ruling.Petitioner Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. (represented by its VP for Administration, M/Gen. Nemesio M. Sigaya) retrenched 21 employees. The company union, Philtranco Workers Union‑Association of Genuine Labor Organizations (PWU‑AGLU), filed a Notice of Strike and an unfair labor practice complaint. The dispute was docketed at the NCMB as NCMB‑NCR Case No. NS‑02‑028‑07. After failed conciliation before Conciliator‑Mediator Aglibut, the case was referred to the Office of the Secretary of Labor and docketed as Case No. OS‑VA‑2007‑008.
Acting DOLE Secretary Danilo P. Cruz issued a Decision dated June 13, 2007 ordering, among other relief, reinstatement of 17 allegedly illegally terminated union officers, payment of backwages, maintenance of the CBA status quo, and remittance of withheld union dues. Petitioner received the Decision on June 14, 2007 and filed a Motion for Reconsideration on June 25, 2007; private respondent filed a Partial Appeal. By Order dated August 15, 2007 (received by petitioner August 17, 2007), the Secretary declined to act on the Motion for Reconsideration and the Partial Appeal, citing DOLE Department Order No. 40‑03, Rule XIX, Section 7 (which prohibits motions for reconsideration of voluntary arbitrators’ decisions).
Petitioner then filed an original petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for injunctive relief in the Court of Appeals (docketed CA‑G.R. SP No. 100324) on August 29, 2007. On September 20, 2007 the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, holding that the proper remedy to assail a voluntary arbitrator’s decision was a petition for review under Rule 43, and that petitioner had failed to timely appeal under that rule; the CA also ruled that petitioner’s unauthorized Motion for Reconsideration before the Secretary did not toll the 60‑day period for a Rule 65 petition. Petitioner moved for reconsideration in the CA; the CA denied the motion in its December 14, 2007 Resolution.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court seeking to set aside the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that petitioner availed of the erroneous remedy by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 instead of a petition for review under Rule 43?
- Was the petition for certiorari filed out of time under Rule 65?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing the petition outright on...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)