G.R. No. 180962 ; February 26, 2014
PIDLTRANCO SERVICE ENTERPRISES, INC., represented by its Vice-President for Administration, M/GEN. NEMESIO M. SIGAYA, Petitioner, vs. PHILTRANCO WORKERS UNION-ASSOCIATION OF GENUINE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS (PWU-AGLO), represented by JOSE JESSIE OLIVAR, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc., a land transportation company, retrenched 21 employees on the ground of business losses. Respondent union, PWU-AGLO, filed a Notice of Strike for unfair labor practice. After a failed conciliation at the NCMB, the case was referred to the Office of the Secretary of the DOLE, docketed as Case No. OS-VA-2007-008. Acting DOLE Secretary Danilo P. Cruz issued a Decision dated June 13, 2007, ordering Philtranco to: 1) reinstate 17 illegally terminated union officers with backwages; 2) maintain the status quo of the existing CBA; and 3) remit withheld union dues. Petitioner received the Decision on June 14, 2007, and filed a Motion for Reconsideration on June 25, 2007. The Secretary of Labor, citing a DOLE regulation that prohibits motions for reconsideration of voluntary arbitrators’ decisions, issued an Order dated August 15, 2007 declining to rule on the motion. Petitioner received this Order on August 17, 2007. On August 29, 2007, petitioner filed before the Court of Appeals an original Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition. The CA dismissed the petition in a Resolution dated September 20, 2007, ruling that: 1) the proper remedy was a petition for review under Rule 43, not certiorari under Rule 65; 2) the assailed Decision had become final for lack of a timely appeal under Rule 43; and 3) even assuming certiorari was proper, it was filed out of time as the unauthorized Motion for Reconsideration did not toll the 60-day period. The CA denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration in a Resolution dated December 14, 2007.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioner availed of the erroneous remedy in filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 instead of a petition for review under Rule 43.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the petition for certiorari was filed out of time.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the Petition.
1. On the proper remedy: The Court held that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is the correct remedy to assail the Decision of the Secretary of Labor. The Secretary assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute under Article 263 of the Labor Code because the case involved an impending strike in a public transportation company, an industry indispensable to national interest. This assumption of jurisdiction removed the case from the coverage of voluntary arbitration under Article 262 and placed it under the Secretary’s plenary and discretionary power. Decisions of the Secretary of Labor in such cases are not appealable and may only be reviewed via certiorari under Rule 65. The CA erred in applying Rule 43.
2. On the timeliness of the petition: The Court held that the petition for certiorari was filed on time. The filing of a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the filing of a petition for certiorari, even if such motion is prohibited by the agency’s rules, as it affords the agency an opportunity to correct itself. Petitioner filed its Motion for Reconsideration on June 25, 2007, which was denied via the Order received on August 17, 2007. Petitioner then filed the certiorari petition on August 29, 2007, which was within the 60-day period from notice of the denial of the motion, as prescribed by Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Thus, the CA erred in dismissing the petition on procedural grounds.