G.R. No. 123782 September 16, 1997
CALTEX REFINERY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (CREA), petitioner, vs. HON. JOSE S. BRILLANTES, in his capacity as Acting Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment, and CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), Inc., respondents.

FACTS

Anticipating the expiration of their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) on July 31, 1995, petitioner CREA and private respondent Caltex (Phils.), Inc. negotiated for a new CBA. The parties reached agreements on some items but deadlocked on others, leading CREA to file a notice of strike. Conciliation efforts by the National Conciliation and Mediation Board failed. On August 22, 1995, public respondent Acting Secretary of Labor Jose S. Brillantes assumed jurisdiction over the dispute under Article 263(g) of the Labor Code, enjoining any strike. Defying this order, CREA commenced a strike on August 25, 1995. The strike was later lifted after a memorandum of agreement for the workers’ return. The parties, however, remained at an impasse on unresolved CBA issues and the legality of the subsequent termination of union officers due to the strike. They agreed to submit these issues for resolution by the Secretary of Labor, whose subsequent three orders, directing the execution of a new CBA and affirming the denial of certain union demands, were challenged by CREA via certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Secretary of Labor and Employment committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed orders resolving the CBA deadlock and related issues.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized the broad discretionary authority of the Secretary of Labor under Article 263(g) of the Labor Code to assume jurisdiction and resolve labor disputes in industries indispensable to national interest. The Secretary’s resolutions on CBA contents are accorded great respect and finality, as they are exercises of administrative expertise aimed at balancing the interests of labor and capital to achieve industrial peace. The Court held that such resolutions are not strictly confined to legal right or wrong but are grounded on what is possible, fair, and reasonable under the circumstances. The Secretary’s factual findings and economic arbitrations, including the denial of certain union demands on wages, benefits, and union security, and the treatment of the strike’s legality, were supported by substantial evidence and were not shown to be whimsical, capricious, or arbitrary. The orders were the product of proceedings where both parties were heard, and the Secretary acted within the permissible bounds of his statutory power to settle the dispute comprehensively.