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

Case Summary (G.R. No. 180962)

Factual Background

The dispute arose when Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc., a local land transportation company, retrenched twenty-one employees citing business losses. The company union, PWU-AGLO, filed a Notice of Strike and charged the company with unfair labor practices. The matter was docketed before the NCMB as NCMB-NCR CASE No. NS-02-028-07 and, after failure to settle at the NCMB preliminary conference, was referred to the Secretary of Labor and docketed as Case No. OS-VA-2007-008.

Proceedings before the DOLE and Acting Secretary's Decision

After submission of position papers and other documents, Acting DOLE Secretary Danilo P. Cruz issued a Decision dated June 13, 2007. The Decision ordered, among other things, the reinstatement without loss of seniority of seventeen illegally terminated union officers and payment of backwages, maintenance of the status quo regarding specified collective bargaining agreement terms, and remittance of withheld union dues to PWU-AGLU. The Decision provided that the parties would receive notice and that the decision would be final and executory under the applicable provisions.

Post-decision Filings and Secretary's Order

Petitioner received the Decision on June 14, 2007 and filed a Motion for Reconsideration on June 25, 2007. PWU-AGLO submitted a Partial Appeal. On August 15, 2007, the Secretary of Labor issued an Order in which he declined to act on petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration and on the Partial Appeal, citing Department Order No. 40-03, Rule XIX, Section 7, which provides that decisions of voluntary arbitrators shall not be the subject of motions for reconsideration. The Secretary noted the pleadings as having no legal basis.

Petition for Certiorari in the Court of Appeals and its Resolutions

On August 29, 2007, petitioner filed an original Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with prayer for injunctive relief in the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 100324. On September 20, 2007, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. The CA concluded that petitioner invoked the wrong remedy by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, when a petition for review under Rule 43 should have been filed to assail a voluntary arbitrator’s decision. The CA also held that, in any event, the petition was filed out of time because the unauthorized Motion for Reconsideration filed with the Secretary did not toll the 60-day period for certiorari. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration before the CA, which the CA denied on December 14, 2007, reiterating that the Secretary’s decision was within the NCMB’s jurisdiction and thus covered by Rule 43.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Petitioner assigned errors alleging that the Court of Appeals erred in: (1) ruling that the petitioner availed of the erroneous remedy by filing under Rule 65 instead of Rule 43; (2) holding that the petition for certiorari was filed out of time; and (3) dismissing the petition on pure technicality.

Petitioner's Contentions

Petitioner maintained that the proper remedy to assail the Acting Secretary’s June 13, 2007 Decision was a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, relying on the Court’s pronouncements in National Federation of Labor v. Laguesma and related authorities. Petitioner argued that the case was not a mere voluntary arbitration matter under Article 262, but fell within Article 263 because of the impending strike in a public transportation company imbued with public interest and because the Secretary assumed jurisdiction. Petitioner further contended that it timely filed its certiorari petition because Rule 65 allows a 60-day period to run from notice of denial of a timely filed motion for reconsideration, whether such motion was required or not; petitioner filed its Motion for Reconsideration and then filed the petition within 60 days of the Secretary’s effective denial.

Respondent's Contentions

Respondent argued that the Acting Secretary decided the case in his capacity as a voluntary arbitrator and that the decision was therefore only appealable by petition for review under Rule 43. Respondent echoed the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that petitioner’s filing of an unauthorized Motion for Reconsideration did not toll the 60-day period for certiorari, and thus the certiorari petition filed in the CA was untimely. On the merits, respondent asserted that petitioner failed to comply with legal requirements for retrenchment.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court granted the petition. The Court held that the Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction under Article 263 and did not act merely as a voluntary arbitrator. The Court concluded that where the Secretary assumes jurisdiction because a dispute causes or is likely to cause a strike in an industry indispensable to the national interest, his exercise of jurisdiction invokes the plenary and discretionary powers contemplated by Article 263, and his decision is appropriately assailed by certiorari under Rule 65. The Court found that the Secretary’s assumption of jurisdiction removed the case from the coverage of Article 262 and Rule 43.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reiterated settled doctrine that decisions or resolutions of the Secretary of Labor are reviewable by special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, with a motion for reconsideration being a precondition to judicial review. The Court emphasized the functional rationale that certiorari requires first affording the administrative authority the opportunity to correct its own errors; therefore, a motion for reconsideration serves as the tangible representation of that opportun

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 180962)

Parties and Posture

Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc., represented by its Vice-President for Administration, M/Gen. Nemesio M. Sigaya, Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse the Court of Appeals' resolutions dismissing its Rule 65 petition.
Philtranco Workers Union-Association of Genuine Labor Organizations (PWU-AGLO), represented by Jose Jessie Olivar, Respondent opposed the petition and had earlier filed a Partial Appeal before the Department of Labor and Employment.
The case arose from NCMB-NCR Case No. NS-02-028-07 which was referred to the Office of the Secretary of Labor and docketed as Case No. OS-VA-2007-008.
The Court of Appeals issued a Resolution dated September 20, 2007 dismissing the Rule 65 petition and denied reconsideration by Resolution dated December 14, 2007.
The Supreme Court granted review on certiorari and reinstated the petition after initial denials and reconsideration at the Supreme Court level.

Key Facts

Petitioner retrenched twenty-one employees on the ground of business losses, which prompted the company union to file a Notice of Strike and a complaint for unfair labor practices.
Conciliator-Mediator Amorsolo Aglibut failed to settle the dispute at the February 21, 2007 conference and referred the case to the Secretary of Labor.
Acting Secretary of Labor Danilo P. Cruz rendered a Decision dated June 13, 2007 ordering the reinstatement of the illegally terminated seventeen 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.
The Secretary of Labor issued an Order dated August 15, 2007, received by petitioner on August 17, 2007, declining to act on the motion for reconsideration and the Partial Appeal on the basis of Department Order No. 40-03, Rule XIX, Section 7.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals on August 29, 2007, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 100324.

Lower Decisions

The Court of Appeals dismissed the Rule 65 petition on September 20, 2007 on the ground that the proper remedy was a petition for review under Rule 43 and that the petition was filed out of time.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the Decision of the Secretary of Labor was that of a voluntary arbitrator and thus covered by Rule 43, and also held that the unauthorized motion for reconsideration did not toll the reglementary period for certiorari.
The Court of Appeals denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration by Resolution dated December 14, 2007, reiterating that the Secretary acted within NCMB jurisdiction and that Rule 43 applied.

Issues Presented

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding 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.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the petition for certiorari was filed out of time.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition on technical grounds without addressing merits.

Petitioner Contentions

Petitioner argued that the Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction under Article 263 of the Labor Code and therefore the Decision was subject to judicial review by certiorari under Rule 65 as prescribed in National Federation of Labor v. Laguesma.
Petitioner maintained that the case involved an impending strike in a public-transportation company and thus fell squarely within Article 263 rather than Article 262 governing voluntary arbitration.
Petitioner contended that