Philtranco Service Enterprises v. Philtranco Workers Union
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. retrenched 21 employees due to business losses. The union, Philtranco Workers Union-Association of Genuine Labor Organizations (PWU-AGLO), filed a Notice of Strike, alleging unfair labor practices. The case was referred to the Office of the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). Procedural History: The Acting DOLE Secretary issued a Decision on June 13, 2007, ordering Philtranco to reinstate 17 illegally terminated union officers with backwages, maintain the status quo of the CBA, and remit union dues. Philtranco filed a Motion for Reconsideration, and PWU-AGLO filed a "Partial Appeal." On August 15, 2007, the Secretary of Labor, citing DOLE Department Order No. 40-03, declined to rule on both pleadings, stating that voluntary arbitrators' decisions are not subject to motions for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner Philtranco filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CA) on August 29, 2007. The CA dismissed the petition on September 20, 2007, holding that a petition for review under Rule 43, not certiorari under Rule 65, was the proper remedy, and that the petition was filed out of time. The CA denied Philtranco's Motion for Reconsideration on December 14, 2007.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was the erroneous remedy instead of a petition for review under Rule 43. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the petition for certiorari was filed out of time. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition outright on the basis of technicality.
Ruling
The Petition is GRANTED. The assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 100324 is ordered REINSTATED and the Court of Appeals is DIRECTED to RESOLVE the same with DELIBERATE DISPATCH.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy (Certiorari vs. Rule 43): The Court held that the Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the case involving an impending strike in a public transportation company under Article 263 of the Labor Code, not merely as a voluntary arbitrator. Therefore, the Secretary's decision was a proper subject of a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, not a petition for review under Rule 43. The Court reiterated that when the Secretary of Labor assumes jurisdiction over a labor dispute in an industry indispensable to the national interest, he exercises broad discretion, and his decisions are subject to judicial review only through certiorari. The Court cited jurisprudence establishing that decisions of the Secretary of Labor under Article 263 are generally final and executory but are still reviewable by certiorari. On the timeliness of the Petition for Certiorari: The Court agreed with the petitioner that the petition was timely filed. It clarified that Rule 65 fixes the 60-day period from notice of the denial of a motion for reconsideration, even if such motion is not required or is prohibited. The Court emphasized that certiorari inherently requires an opportunity for the issuing office to correct itself, which is provided by a motion for reconsideration. Therefore, even if the DOLE Regulation prohibited motions for reconsideration, filing one and receiving notice of its denial tolls the 60-day period. Petitioner received the Secretary of Labor's decision on June 14, 2007, filed a motion for reconsideration on June 25, 2007, and received the denial on August 17, 2007. The petition for certiorari was filed on August 29, 2007, well within the fresh 60-day period. On dismissal on technicality: Given that the Court found that certiorari was the proper remedy and that the petition was timely filed, the CA's dismissal on technical grounds was erroneous. The Court directed the CA to resolve the petition on its merits.
Main Doctrine
Regardless of any proscription against filing a motion for reconsideration, such a motion may be filed to afford the office an opportunity to rectify its decision or order, and the 60-day period for filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 shall be counted from the notice of the denial of such motion.