GR 141020; (June, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 141020 ; June 12, 2008
CASINO LABOR ASSOCIATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PHIL. CASINO OPERATORS CORPORATION (PCOC) and PHIL. SPECIAL SERVICES CORPORATIONS (PSSC), respondents.
FACTS
The petitioner labor union initially filed consolidated cases against PAGCOR, PCOC, and PSSC before the NLRC Arbitration Branch. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the cases for lack of jurisdiction over PAGCOR and PCOC. The NLRC en banc affirmed the dismissal, ruling it had no jurisdiction over PAGCOR. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 85922 . The Court’s Third Division dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC. In a subsequent Resolution denying reconsideration, the Court stated: “Any petitions brought against private companies will have to be brought before the appropriate agency or office of the Department of Labor and Employment.”
Relying solely on this statement, petitioner filed a Manifestation/Motion with the NLRC praying for the remand of its cases against the private respondents PCOC and PSSC to the Arbitration Branch. The NLRC First Division initially granted this motion. However, upon motion for reconsideration by PCOC and PSSC, the NLRC set aside its earlier order, ruling it was issued without legal basis. Petitioner’s subsequent petition for certiorari was referred by the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed it, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC. Petitioner now assails the CA’s decision.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in upholding the NLRC’s denial of the remand, thereby allegedly ignoring the mandate of the Supreme Court’s Resolution in G.R. No. 85922 .
RULING
The petition lacks merit. The Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The core issue is the proper interpretation of the statement in the G.R. No. 85922 Resolution. Petitioner erroneously isolated a single sentence, treating it as a mandate for the NLRC to assume jurisdiction. A judgment must be construed as a whole to determine the court’s intention. A close reading of the full Resolutions in G.R. No. 85922 reveals the Supreme Court’s clear ruling: the NLRC lacked jurisdiction over the respondent corporations, including PCOC and PSSC, because they were government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters, falling under the Civil Service Commission’s jurisdiction pursuant to the Constitution.
The statement regarding “private companies” was a general observation and not a specific directive applicable to the case. It did not override the Court’s primary holding on jurisdictional lack. The petitioner’s proper course of action, as laid down in the final and executory Resolution in G.R. No. 85922 , was to file its claims before the Civil Service Commission, not to seek a remand to the NLRC. Therefore, the NLRC committed no grave abuse of discretion in setting aside its erroneous remand order, and the CA correctly affirmed this action. The petition is dismissed.