This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2010-11-15 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| It is well-settled that the Secretary of Labor, in the exercise of his power to assume jurisdiction under Art. 263 (g)[11] of the Labor Code, may resolve all issues involved in the controversy including the award of wage increases and benefits.[12] While an arbitral award cannot per se be categorized as an agreement voluntarily entered into by the parties because it requires the intervention and imposing power of the State thru the Secretary of Labor when he assumes jurisdiction, the arbitral award can be considered an approximation of a collective bargaining agreement which would otherwise have been entered into by the parties, hence, it has the force and effect of a valid contract obligation.[13] | |||||
|
2010-07-05 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| On the other hand, the CA faulted the Labor Secretary for not ruling on the dismissal of the union officers. It took exception to the Labor Secretary's view that the dismissal question is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the labor arbiter pursuant to Article 217 of the Labor Code. It invoked the ruling of this Court in Interphil Laboratories Employees Union-FFW v. Interphil Laboratories, Inc.,[34] which, in turn, cited International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor,[35] where we held that the Labor Secretary has jurisdiction over all questions and controversies arising from an assumed dispute, including cases over which the labor arbiter has exclusive jurisdiction. | |||||
|
2009-12-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Accordingly, when the Secretary of Labor directed YSS Laboratories to accept all the striking workers back to work, the Secretary did not exceed his jurisdiction, or gravely abuse the same. It is significant at this point to point out that grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment. Thus, an act may be considered as committed in grave abuse of discretion when the same is performed in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment, which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility.[24] In the case at bar, there is no showing that the assailed orders were issued in an arbitrary or despotic manner. The Orders dated 11 May 2001 and 9 June 2001 were issued by the Secretary of Labor, with the end in view of preserving the status quo ante while the main issues of the validity of the retrenchment and legality of the strike were being threshed out in the proper forum. This was done for the promotion of the common good, considering that a lingering strike could be inimical to the interest of both employer and employee. The Secretary of Labor acts to maintain industrial peace. Thus, his certification for compulsory arbitration is not intended to interfere with the management's rights but to obtain a speedy settlement of the dispute. This is well-articulated in International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor,[25] as follows: Plainly, Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code was meant to make both the Secretary (or the various regional directors) and the labor arbiters share jurisdiction, subject to certain conditions. Otherwise, the Secretary would not be able to effectively and efficiently dispose of the primary dispute. To hold the contrary may even lead to the absurd and undesirable result wherein the Secretary and the labor arbiter concerned may have diametrically opposed rulings. As we have said, "(i)t is fundamental that a statute is to be read in a manner that would breathe life into it, rather than defeat it. | |||||
|
2006-08-22 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Nevertheless, granting for the sake of argument that the meetings undertaken by the parties had not gone beyond the discussion of the ground rules, the issue of whether or not the Secretary of the DOLE could decide issues incidental to the subject labor dispute had already been answered in the affirmative. The Secretary's assumption of jurisdiction power necessarily includes matters incidental to the labor dispute, that is, issues that are necessarily involved in the dispute itself, not just to those ascribed in the Notice of Strike; or, otherwise submitted to him for resolution. As held in the case of International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Sec. of Labor and Employment,[50] "x x x [t]he Secretary was explicitly granted by Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code the authority to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest, and decide the same accordingly. Necessarily, this authority to assume jurisdiction over the said labor dispute must include and extend to all questions and controversies arising therefrom, including cases over which the Labor Arbiter has exclusive jurisdiction."[51] Accordingly, even if not exactly on the ground upon which the Notice of Strike is based, the fact that the issue is incidental to the resolution of the subject labor dispute or that a specific issue had been submitted to the Secretary of the DOLE for her resolution, validly empowers the latter to take cognizance of and resolve the same. | |||||
|
2006-03-28 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| We are not unmindful of the Court's ruling in International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. vs. Secretary of Labor, et al., [25] that the SOLE's jurisdiction over labor disputes must include and extend to all questions and controversies arising therefrom, including cases over which the Labor Arbiter has exclusive jurisdiction. However, we are inclined to treat the present case as an exception to that holding. For, the NCMB's inaction on the University's motion to refer the dispute to voluntary arbitration veritably forced the hand of the University to seek and accordingly submit to the jurisdiction of the SOLE. Considering that the CBA contained a no strike, no lockout and grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration clauses, the NCMB, under its very own Manual of Procedures in the Settlement and Disposition of Conciliation and Preventive Mediation Cases, should have declared as not duly filed the Union's Notice of Strike and thereafter, should have referred the labor dispute to voluntary arbitration pursuant to Article 261, supra, of the Labor Code. For sure, Section 6(c)(i), Rule VI, of the NCMB's Manual specifically provides:Section 6. Action on non-strikeable issues A strike or lockout notice anchored on grounds involving (1) inter-union or intra-union disputes (2) violation of labor standard laws (3) pending cases at the DOLE Regional Offices, BLR, NLRC and its appropriate Regional Branches, NWPC and its Regional Wage Boards, Office of the Secretary, Voluntary Arbitrator, Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court (4) execution and enforcement of final orders, decisions, resolutions or awards of no. (3) above shall be considered not duly filed and the party so filing shall be notified of such finding in writing by the Regional Branch Director. On his part, the Conciliator-Mediator shall convince the party concerned to voluntarily withdraw the notice without prejudice to further conciliation proceedings. Otherwise, he shall recommend to the Regional Branch Director that the notice be treated as a preventive mediation case. | |||||