Phimco Industries v. Acting Secretary Of Labor Jose Brillantes And Phimco Industries Labor
PHIMCO INDUSTRIES, INC. v. HONORABLE ACTING SECRETARY OF LABOR JOSE BRILLANTES and PHIMCO INDUSTRIES LABOR ASSOCIATION, G.R. No. 120751, March 17, 1999
- Labor Law
- certiorari under Rule 65
- grave abuse of discretion
- assumption of jurisdiction
- labor dispute
- strike
- Secretary of Labor
- Article 263(g) Labor Code
- National Conciliation and Mediation Board
- return-to-work order
- deadlock in collective bargaining
I. Facts of the Case
PHIMCO Industries, Inc. and its certified bargaining representative, Phimco Industries Labor Association (PILA), were involved in a deadlocked collective bargaining dispute that led PILA to file a notice of strike with the NCMB and to stage a strike after failed conciliation conferences. While PILA sought the Secretary of Labor’s intervention, PHIMCO sent termination notices to some workers, including union officers. After Acting Secretary Jose Brillantes assumed jurisdiction, he issued a return-to-work order directing most striking workers to report within 24 hours and for the company to accept them under prior terms. PHIMCO challenged the July 7, 1995 assumption order via a Rule 65 petition, arguing that the Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
March 9, 1995
PILA, as the certified bargaining representative of PHIMCO’s daily paid workers, filed a notice of strike with the NCMB-NCR against PHIMCO after a deadlock in collective bargaining negotiations.
April 21, 1995
After several conciliation conferences failed to resolve the parties’ differences, PILA staged a strike.
June 7, 1995
PILA filed a petition for the intervention of the Secretary of Labor in the resolution of the labor dispute, which PHIMCO opposed.
June 26, 1995
Pending resolution of the intervention petition, PHIMCO sent notice of termination to some 47 workers, including several union officers.
July 7, 1995
Acting Secretary of Labor Jose Brillantes assumed jurisdiction over the dispute and ordered all striking workers except those already given termination papers to return to work within 24 hours from receipt, with the company to accept them back under the same terms and conditions prior to the strike, and directed the parties to cease and desist from aggravating acts; the parties were also ordered to submit position papers and evidence within ten (10) days.
July 12, 1995
PHIMCO filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 to set aside the July 7, 1995 Order on the ground that the Acting Secretary acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
July 31, 1995
The public respondent issued another Order temporarily holding in abeyance the implementation of the July 7, 1995 Order for thirty (30) days pending private negotiations, and directing both the union and the company to submit the results of their negotiations for evaluation and appropriate action.
II. Issues
Whether or not the public respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in assuming jurisdiction over subject labor dispute.
III. Ruling
Whether or not the public respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in assuming jurisdiction over subject labor dispute.
The Acting Secretary of Labor gravely abused his discretion when he assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute and issued the return-to-work order.
How the Court reasoned
- The Court treated the case as involving the propriety of the Secretary’s assumption of jurisdiction, which may be questioned through a Rule 65 petition when there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
- Article 263(g) is the statutory basis for assumption of jurisdiction; it requires circumstances that justify such intervention to avoid a strike, not merely the existence of a labor dispute.
- The Court found that the Acting Secretary’s assumption of jurisdiction in this dispute did not meet the legal requisites contemplated by Article 263(g), rendering the assumption legally infirm.
- The Court stressed that the gravely abusive exercise of the Secretary’s authority warranted setting aside the assailed July 7, 1995 Order.
“In light of the foregoing, we hold that the public respondent gravely abused his discretion in assuming jurisdiction over the labor dispute sued upon in the case.”
Rule applied
Article 263(g) of the Labor Code, as amended; Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court
Doctrines
The Secretary of Labor’s assumption of jurisdiction under Article 263(g) of the Labor Code must be within the statutory limits; when the assumption is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the assailed order may be set aside through certiorari under Rule 65.
Final Disposition
WHEREFORE , the petition is hereby GRANTED ; and the assailed Order, dated July 7, 1995, of the Acting Secretary of Labor SET ASIDE.
Notes
The October 30, 1991 (Free telephone workers), March 12, 1997 (Philtread Workers Union), and other cited cases indicate the controlling standards for when assumption of jurisdiction may constitute grave abuse of discretion, though the dispositive conclusion in this case is that the Acting Secretary exceeded the bounds required by Article 263(g).