A.C. No. 3967 - Endaya vs. Oca

Petitioners, former rank-and-file employees and members of the Philtread Workers Union (PWU), voluntarily participated in a retrenchment program instituted by Philtread in 1985 during its financial crisis.
Under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) executed on July 5, 1983 (with similar provisions in the 1986 CBA), petitioners were promised priority for re-employment should the company recover financially.

In November 1986, as Philtread appeared to recover from its financial setbacks, the company expanded its operations and hired new personnel.
Petitioners, upon learning of this expansion, filed applications for re-employment; however, these applications were not met with favorable results, nor was there any confirmation of their priority status.
Subsequent demands by petitioners—and even a request by the union to halt further hiring until petitioners were re-employed—were ignored.

On December 5, 1988, petitioners filed a complaint with the National Capital Region Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for unfair labor practice (ULP), damages, and attorney’s fees, numbering this case as NLRC-NCR Case No. 12-04975-88.
Philtread moved for dismissal on two grounds:

Lack of jurisdiction based on the absence of an employer-employee relationship and the contention that the main issue being the interpretation of the CBA should be handled by regular courts.
Lack of locus standi, as petitioners were not parties to the CBA between the union and Philtread.

The Labor Arbiter, in a decision rendered on August 31, 1989, dismissed the complaint but directed Philtread to give petitioners priority in hiring, thereby addressing the re-employment issue though not resolving the jurisdictional question raised by Philtread.

On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision on April 15, 1992, ordering Philtread to re-employ petitioners (and similarly situated employees) without undue pre-employment conditions except for existing vacancies and physical fitness.
Atty. Abraham B. Borreta, counsel for petitioners, received the resolution on May 5, 1992, as documented by the bailiff’s return.
On May 20, 1992, Atty. Borreta filed an ex parte manifestation informing the NLRC that the resolution had been erroneously served to him, claiming that Atty. Daniel C. Gutierrez had been handling the case for Philtread and that the law firm of Borreta, Gutierrez and Leogardo had dissolved.

Believing that the April 15, 1992 resolution had attained finality (given Philtread’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration within the ten-day period mandated by Article 223 of the Labor Code), petitioners moved for its execution.
Contrary to petitioners’ understanding, Philtread’s counsel (Atty. Gutierrez) filed a motion for reconsideration on June 5, 1992—31 days after the resolution’s receipt—leading to a series of controversial administrative actions.
The NLRC, on November 18, 1992, promulgated a new resolution dismissing petitioners’ complaint by asserting the proper venue was the voluntary arbitrator pursuant to Article 261 of the Labor Code (a contention later reiterated in the April 7, 1993 resolution).
Petitioners contended that Philtread’s late filing was procedurally impermissible and that the April 15, 1992 resolution had already become final and executory.

Philtread claimed that once re-employment provisions were deemed part of the interpretation of the CBA, the dispute should be handled by the voluntary arbitrator rather than the Labor Arbiter.
The NLRC’s shifting positions raised questions over its jurisdiction pursuant to the regulatory framework provided by Articles 217, 261, and 262 of the Labor Code, further complicated by the amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 6715.
Petitioners argued that the retroactive application of RA 6715 was inapplicable as the complaint was filed before its effective date, thereby preserving the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter over ULP cases not involving gross violations of the CBA.

Whether Philtread’s motion for reconsideration, filed on June 5, 1992—beyond the mandatory ten-day reglementary period—should be considered valid.
The effect of the untimely motion on the finality and executory nature of the April 15, 1992 resolution.

Whether the matter falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC because it involves individual unfair labor practices, or whether it should have been heard by a voluntary arbitrator given the subject matter of the CBA re-employment provision.
The dispute over whether the complaint should be considered as arising from a violation of the CBA (involving the union and employer) or as an individual ULP case.

The issue of whether the amendments brought about by Republic Act No. 6715—which re-apportioned jurisdiction between the Labor Arbiter and the voluntary arbitrator—should have retroactively divested the Labor Arbiter’s jurisdiction over petitioners’ complaint.
Whether the “curative” nature of such amendments applies in the instant case, especially given the allegation that the gross nature of the CBA violation was not sufficiently demonstrated by petitioners.