G.R. No. L-80648 August 15, 1988
PHILIPPINE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION – MANILA, petitioner, vs. ACTING SECRETARY CARMELO C. NORIEL of the Department of Labor and Employment, PHILIPPINE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION EMPLOYEES UNION-FFW CHAPTER, et al., respondents.

FACTS

The Philippine School of Business Administration Employees Union-FFW Chapter filed a petition for direct certification as the bargaining agent for the school’s non-academic personnel and later filed a notice of strike alleging union busting, coercion, and harassment. The petitioner school opposed the certification, claiming the union lacked majority support and presenting a letter from one Josefino Sacro purporting to represent a majority group named PSBA-AL-GRO-WELL. This rival group, however, only filed its application for registration as a legitimate labor organization after the union’s petition. Conciliation efforts failed, and the union went on strike. The school subsequently filed an unfair labor practice case against the union. Concurrently, some students filed a civil case in the Regional Trial Court of Manila seeking to enjoin the picketing, wherein the school joined the plaintiffs and filed a crossclaim for damages against the union.
While these cases were pending, Acting Secretary of Labor Carmelo C. Noriel issued an order assuming jurisdiction over the labor dispute under Article 263(g) of the Labor Code, citing that the strike at an educational institution with approximately 9,000 students adversely affected the national interest. The order directed the striking employees to return to work immediately and the management to accept them under pre-strike terms. The union complied, but the school allegedly prevented their return, leading the union to seek a writ of execution. The school then filed this petition to nullify the Secretary’s order.

ISSUE

Whether the Acting Secretary of Labor committed grave abuse of discretion in assuming jurisdiction over the labor dispute and issuing a return-to-work order.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the order. The legal logic is anchored on the Secretary’s statutory authority and the school’s undue interference in the employees’ right to self-organization. Under Article 263(g) of the Labor Code, the Secretary of Labor may assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the Secretary’s determination that the strike at a major educational institution with thousands of students adversely affected the national interest, warranting assumption of jurisdiction to prevent further prejudice to the students’ welfare and academic pursuits.
Crucially, the Court emphasized that the employer has no right to interfere in the employees’ choice of a collective bargaining representative. The Constitution guarantees workers the rights to self-organization and collective bargaining. The school’s active opposition to the respondent union, its support for a rival group (PSBA-AL-GRO-WELL) that was registered belatedly and remained passive in proceedings, and its legal maneuvers against the union collectively indicated an “undisguised interest” amounting to union-busting. Employers are barred from dipping their fingers into this selection process, which is the exclusive concern of the employees. Therefore, the Secretary’s order, which aimed to restore the status quo and resolve the dispute through proper channels, was a valid exercise of power to uphold the rule of law and protect constitutional labor rights.