GR 144315; (July, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 144315 July 17, 2006
PHILCOM EMPLOYEES UNION, petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS and PHILCOM CORPORATION, respondents.
FACTS
Upon the expiration of their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) in 1997, petitioner Philcom Employees Union (PEU) and respondent Philippine Global Communications, Inc. commenced negotiations for its renewal. During negotiations, PEU filed a Notice of Strike citing unfair labor practice, and later, a second Notice of Strike on the ground of bargaining deadlock. The parties agreed to consolidate the notices and maintain the status quo. However, on November 17, 1997, union members staged a strike, barricading company premises. The company petitioned for the Secretary of Labor to assume jurisdiction under Article 263(g) of the Labor Code. Acting Secretary Cresenciano B. Trajano issued an Order assuming jurisdiction, enjoining the strike, and directing a return-to-work.
In its position paper before the Secretary, the union enumerated numerous alleged unfair labor practices by the company, including issues of contractualization, non-implementation of benefits, and economic inducement. The company, in its position paper, raised the sole issue of the strike’s illegality. The union filed a motion to strike out the company’s arguments on the strike’s legality, contending it was not an issue assumed for resolution by the Secretary.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the Secretary of Labor and Employment, after assuming jurisdiction over a labor dispute under Article 263(g) of the Labor Code, has the authority to rule on the legality of a strike that precipitated the assumption order.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and held that the Secretary of Labor correctly ruled on the strike’s legality. When the Secretary assumes jurisdiction under Article 263(g), the authority is plenary and extends to all questions and controversies arising from the dispute, including the strike’s legality. The provision states the Secretary’s decision “shall be final and executory.” The strike was the direct cause for the company’s petition and the Secretary’s subsequent assumption of jurisdiction. Therefore, the issue of its legality was inherently intertwined with the dispute and properly within the Secretary’s adjudicative power. The Court emphasized that the assumption order’s purpose is to restore industrial peace, and a definitive ruling on the strike’s validity is essential to achieve this objective. The union’s claim that the issue was not formally pleaded was untenable, as the company’s position paper squarely raised it, and technical rules of procedure are not strictly applied in labor cases. The Secretary’s finding that the strike was illegal, due to its staging during ongoing conciliation and in violation of the agreed status quo, was thus upheld.