G.R. No. 162783 July 14, 2005
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. Inc. vs. Manggagawa ng Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas and the Court of Appeals

FACTS

Petitioner PLDT, a telecommunications company, and respondent MKP, a labor union representing its rank-and-file employees, were involved in a labor dispute. MKP filed two Notices of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB), alleging unfair labor practices by PLDT, including the implementation of a redundancy program and the hiring of contractual workers for regular jobs. Conciliation meetings failed, and MKP staged a strike on December 23, 2002. Subsequently, on December 31, 2002, PLDT terminated 383 union members pursuant to its redundancy program.
On January 2, 2003, the Secretary of Labor issued an Order certifying the dispute to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration, enjoining the strike, and directing all striking workers to return to work within 24 hours. However, the Order explicitly exempted from the return-to-work directive “those who were terminated due to redundancy.” MKP moved for partial reconsideration, arguing this exemption was improper, but the Secretary denied the motion. The Court of Appeals later nullified the Secretary’s Order, ruling that the exemption was invalid.

ISSUE

Whether the Secretary of Labor gravely abused her discretion in exempting the employees terminated due to redundancy from the return-to-work order.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in the negative and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The legal logic centers on the proper application of Article 263(g) of the Labor Code, which grants the Secretary of Labor the power to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute and issue a return-to-work order. The Court held that the purpose of such an order is to restore the status quo prevailing before the work stoppage. The status quo refers to the last actual, peaceable, and uncontested state of affairs preceding the controversy.
On December 22, 2002, the day before the strike commenced, all the employees subject to the redundancy program were still employed and working. Their termination only took effect on December 31, 2002, after the strike had begun. Therefore, the status quo ante litem was their state of employment. By exempting them from the return-to-work order, the Secretary effectively recognized and gave legal effect to the termination that occurred during the strike, thereby altering, rather than preserving, the status quo. This constituted a grave abuse of discretion. The return-to-work order must be unconditional for all striking workers to ensure an impartial environment for compulsory arbitration. Any issue regarding the validity of the redundancy termination is a matter to be resolved by the NLRC in the compulsory arbitration proceedings, not preempted by the Secretary’s certification order.