Case Summary (G.R. No. 70054)
Decision of the Acting Secretary of Labor
Acting DOLE Secretary Danilo P. Cruz issued a decision (dated June 13, 2007) ordering: (1) reinstatement of 17 illegally terminated union officers without loss of seniority and payment of backwages (with deductions for separation pay previously received); (2) maintenance of the status quo and continued observance of specified terms of the existing collective bargaining agreement; and (3) remittance of withheld union dues to the union.
Motion for Reconsideration and Secretary’s Ruling on Pleadings
Petitioner received the Secretary’s decision on June 14, 2007, and filed a Motion for Reconsideration on June 25, 2007. The union submitted a "Partial Appeal." On August 15, 2007, the Secretary issued an Order declining to rule on those pleadings, citing a DOLE regulation (Department Order No. 40‑03) that provides decisions of voluntary arbitrators shall not be the subject of motions for reconsideration; the Secretary thus noted the pleadings "as pleadings that need not be acted upon for lack of legal basis."
Court of Appeals Proceedings and Resolutions
Philtranco filed an original petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. SP No. 100324) seeking injunctive relief. On September 20, 2007, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, holding that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was the wrong remedy: the decision of a voluntary arbitrator should be challenged by a petition for review under Rule 43. The CA further concluded the petition was untimely because a motion for reconsideration that was unauthorized did not toll the 60‑day period for filing certiorari; accordingly, the CA deemed the Secretary’s decision final and executory. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on December 14, 2007, reiterating that the Secretary was acting as a voluntary arbitrator, thus placing the case under Rule 43.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
The petition to the Supreme Court raised three principal errors by the Court of Appeals: (1) that the CA applied the wrong remedy (dismissing the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 instead of recognizing certiorari as proper under National Federation of Labor v. Laguesma); (2) that the CA erred in ruling the petition for certiorari was filed out of time; and (3) that the CA dismissed the petition on pure technicality.
Petitioner’s Principal Contentions
Petitioner argued the correct remedy to assail the Secretary’s decision was certiorari under Rule 65, relying on precedent that decisions and discretionary acts of the Secretary are reviewable by certiorari after a timely motion for reconsideration. Petitioner also argued the dispute was not a simple voluntary arbitration under Article 262 because the pending strike and public interest in the transportation industry required the Secretary’s assumption of jurisdiction under Article 263. On timeliness, petitioner maintained that the Rule 65 60‑day period runs from notice of the denial of a motion for reconsideration (even if the motion was not required or was proscribed), and since the Secretary effectively denied the motion by the August 15 Order (received August 17), the petition filed August 29 was within the 60‑day period.
Respondent’s Principal Contentions
Respondent maintained that the Secretary acted as a voluntary arbitrator; thus, the appropriate remedy was a petition for review under Rule 43. Respondent further argued that even if certiorari were appropriate, the petition was untimely because the unauthorized motion for reconsideration did not toll the running of the 60‑day period under Rule 65. On the merits, respondent contended the retrenchment had not complied with legal requirements.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on the Proper Remedy
The Supreme Court held that the Secretary did not act in a limited voluntary arbitrator capacity. By accepting the referral from the NCMB and assuming jurisdiction over a labor dispute that was likely to cause a strike in an industry indispensable to the national interest (public land transportation), the Secretary acted under Article 263. The Secretary’s assumption of jurisdiction invoked the plenary and discretionary powers granted by Article 263 to resolve such disputes; those decisions are not subject to ordinary appeal but are reviewable by certiorari under Rule 65. The Court relied on longstanding doctrine that challenges to decisions of the Secretary under Article 263 are pursued by petition for certiorari alleging lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Timeliness and the Role of Motions for Reconsideration
The Court reaffirmed that Rule 65 contemplates the filing of a motion for reconsideration as a condition precedent for filing certiorari: where a motion for reconsideration is timely filed (whether required or not), the 60‑day period to file a Rule 65 petition runs from notice of denial of that motion. The Court explained that certiorari, as an extraordinary remedy, presumes that the administrative office be given an opportunity to correct its own errors; filing a motion for reconsideration is the tangible manifestation of that opportunity. Therefore, even if a government office or a departmental regulation purports to prohibit motions for reconsideration, an aggrieved party may still file one, and the 60‑day period for certiorari runs from the denial (or effective denial) of that motion. Applying these principles, petitioner’s June 25 motion was timely filed (first working day after the deadline falling on Sunday), and the Secretary’s August 15 Order refusing to act on the motion for lack of legal basis constituted an effective denial received August
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 70054)
Case Caption, Source and Decision
- Citation: 728 PHIL. 99, Second Division, G.R. No. 180962, February 26, 2014.
- Parties: Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc., represented by its Vice-President for Administration, M/Gen. Nemesio M. Sigaya (petitioner) v. Philtranco Workers Union-Association of Genuine Labor Organizations (PWU-AGLU), represented by Jose Jessie Olivar (respondent); the Honorable Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) was also a party below.
- Decision authored by Associate Justice Del Castillo for the Court, with Carpio, Chairperson, Perez, Perlas-Bernabe, and Leonen, JJ., concurring. Per raffle dated February 5, 2014.
Factual Background
- Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. (petitioner) is a local land transportation company engaged in carrying passengers and freight.
- Petitioner retrenched 21 employees on the asserted ground of business losses.
- The company union, PWU-AGLU (respondent), filed a Notice of Strike with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), alleging unfair labor practices by petitioner. The case was docketed as NCMB-NCR CASE No. NS-02-028-07.
- Parties were unable to settle at a February 21, 2007 preliminary conference before NCMB Conciliator-Mediator Amorsolo Aglibut; the case was then 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 (received by petitioner on June 14, 2007) ordering, inter alia:
- Reinstatement without loss of seniority of the 17 illegally terminated union officers and payment of backwages (with deductions for separation pay already received by some).
- Maintenance of status quo and continuation in full force and effect of the terms and conditions of the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) until a new agreement is reached.
- Remittance of withheld union dues to PWU-AGLU.
- Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration on June 25, 2007 (a Monday, the first working day after Sunday, June 24).
- Private respondent submitted a "Partial Appeal."
- On August 15, 2007 (order received by petitioner on August 17, 2007), the Secretary of Labor declined to rule on petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration and on respondent’s Partial Appeal, citing Department Order No. 40-03, Rule XIX, Section 7, which provides that voluntary arbitrators’ decisions, orders, resolutions or awards shall not be the subject of motions for reconsideration. The Secretary’s order noted the pleadings as ones that need not be acted upon for lack of legal basis.
Proceedings in the Court of Appeals
- Petitioner filed an original Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with prayer for injunctive relief before the Court of Appeals (CA) on August 29, 2007; case docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 100324.
- On September 20, 2007, the CA issued a Resolution dismissing the petition for certiorari and prohibition and noted petitioner’s "Reiterating Motion for The Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order."
- The CA’s dismissal rationale:
- Petitioner erred in filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 instead of a petition for review under Rule 43, which covers decisions of voluntary labor arbitrators.
- Under Rule 43 and applicable guidelines, petitioner’s remedy was a Rule 43 appeal; the CA relied on Supreme Court Circular No. 2-90 (guidelines) to dismiss erroneous appeals.
- The CA further held that because the Decision was not timely appealed within the 15-day period under Rule 43, it became final and executory.
- Alternatively, even if certiorari were the correct remedy, the CA ruled petitioner’s certiorari was filed out of time: the unauthorized motion for reconsideration filed with the Secretary did not toll the 60-day period for certiorari, and thus the certiorari filed on August 29, 2007 was beyond the 60-day reglementary period counted from receipt of the Decision.
- Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the CA, which the CA denied on December 14, 2007, holding that the Secretary of Labor’s rendering of the decision did not remove the case from NCMB jurisdiction and therefore placed it within Rule 43 coverage.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the CA erred in ruling that petitioner availed of the erroneous remedy by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 instead of under Rule 43.
- Whether the CA erred in holding that the petition for certiorari was filed out of time.
- Whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition on the basis of technicality.
Petitioner’s Arguments (as presented in the source)
- The proper remedy to assail the June 13, 2007 Decision of the DOLE Acting Secretary is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not a petition for review under Rule 43, citing National Federation of Labor v. Hon. Laguesma that decisions and discretionary acts of the NLRC and the Secretary of Labor are subject to certiorari after a motion for reconsideration.
- NCMB-NCR Case No. NS-02-028-07 is not a simple voluntary arbitration case; circumstances (impending strike, public interest in public transportation, assumption of jurisdiction by the Secretary of Labor) removed the case from Article 262 coverage and placed it under Article 263 of the Labor Code.
- Rule 43 does not apply to judgments or final orders issued under the Labor Code.
- Petitioner contends it timely filed the petition: Rule 65 fixes a 60-day period counted from notice of denial of a timely filed motion for reconsideration; since it filed a timely Motion for Reconsideration