G.R. No. 99395 June 29, 1993
ST. LUKE’S MEDICAL CENTER, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. RUBEN O. TORRES and ST. LUKE’S MEDICAL CENTER ASSOCIATION-ALLIANCE OF FILIPINO WORKERS (“SLMCEA-AFW”), respondents.

FACTS

The collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between petitioner St. Luke’s Medical Center and private respondent union (SLMCEA-AFW) for the period August 1, 1987 to July 30, 1990 was about to expire. Before its expiration, the union’s mother federation, AFW, was split by internal leadership squabbles. Despite this, the union initiated negotiations for a new CBA. The parties reached a deadlock, primarily on economic issues such as across-the-board salary increases and meal allowances. The petitioner filed a petition with the Secretary of Labor, who assumed jurisdiction over the dispute pursuant to Article 263(g) of the Labor Code. On January 28, 1991, public respondent Secretary of Labor Ruben Torres issued an Order resolving the economic and non-economic issues, directing the parties to execute a new CBA for 1990-1993. The economic award included: First Year a total of P1,140.00 (P510.00 for government-mandated increase and P630.00 CBA increase); Second Year P700.00 across-the-board monthly salary increase; Third Year P700.00 across-the-board monthly salary increase. The Order was to retroact to the expiration of the previous CBA. Both parties moved for reconsideration, which was denied. Petitioner filed this special civil action for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether public respondent Secretary of Labor committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the arbitral award dated January 28, 1991, particularly regarding: 1) the basis and reasonableness of the monetary awards; 2) the alleged curtailment of the parties’ right to free collective bargaining; 3) the adoption of the union’s allegation regarding the hospital’s last offer; and 4) the retroactive effect of the award.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition for lack of merit. It held that:
1. The Secretary of Labor did not commit grave abuse of discretion in determining the award. The Court found that the Secretary’s decision was based on the evidence and position papers submitted by both parties, including the hospital’s financial statements. The Court noted that the petitioner’s claim of excessive cost (approximately P194 million over three years) was a “self-serving computation” and that the Secretary had considered the hospital’s financial capacity, as evidenced by its consistent profitability and growth in net income.
2. The Secretary did not curtail the parties’ right to free collective bargaining. The petitioner itself invoked the Secretary’s jurisdiction by filing a petition for assumption of jurisdiction after the deadlock. A party cannot submit to jurisdiction and then question it after receiving an unfavorable ruling.
3. The Secretary did not err in his factual determination regarding the parties’ positions during negotiations. The Court found that the petitioner used the internal federation dispute as a pretext to avoid serious bargaining and that the meetings held were indeed negotiation conferences.
4. The retroactive effect of the award to the expiration of the previous CBA was within the Secretary’s discretionary powers. Article 253-A of the Labor Code, which governs the retroactivity of agreements, applies to contracts mutually agreed upon by the parties, not to arbitral awards issued by the Secretary under Article 263(g). In the absence of a legal prohibition, the Secretary has the authority to determine the effectivity of such awards.