0 calificaciones0% encontró este documento útil (0 votos)
28 vistas2 páginas
The petitioner, a local transportation company, retrenched 21 employees claiming business losses. The employees' union filed a notice of strike with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) alleging unfair labor practices. Unable to settle, the case was referred to the DOLE Secretary who ordered the petitioner to reinstate employees. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the Secretary citing a regulation prohibiting motions to reconsider for voluntary arbitration decisions. The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari which the Court of Appeals dismissed. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner availed the proper remedy of certiorari and that the petition was timely filed under Rule 65 since it was filed within 60 days of the denial of the motion for
The petitioner, a local transportation company, retrenched 21 employees claiming business losses. The employees' union filed a notice of strike with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) alleging unfair labor practices. Unable to settle, the case was referred to the DOLE Secretary who ordered the petitioner to reinstate employees. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the Secretary citing a regulation prohibiting motions to reconsider for voluntary arbitration decisions. The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari which the Court of Appeals dismissed. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner availed the proper remedy of certiorari and that the petition was timely filed under Rule 65 since it was filed within 60 days of the denial of the motion for
The petitioner, a local transportation company, retrenched 21 employees claiming business losses. The employees' union filed a notice of strike with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) alleging unfair labor practices. Unable to settle, the case was referred to the DOLE Secretary who ordered the petitioner to reinstate employees. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the Secretary citing a regulation prohibiting motions to reconsider for voluntary arbitration decisions. The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari which the Court of Appeals dismissed. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner availed the proper remedy of certiorari and that the petition was timely filed under Rule 65 since it was filed within 60 days of the denial of the motion for
represented by its Vice-President for Administration, M/GEN. NEMESIO M. SIGAYA, VS PHILTRANCO WORKERS UNIONASSOCIATION OF GENUINE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS (PWU-AGLO), represented by JOSE JESSIE OLIVAR, FACTS: Petitioner Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc., a local land transportation company engaged in the business of carrying passengers and freight, retrenched 21 of its employees on the ground that it was suffering business losses. Consequently, the company union, herein private respondent Philtranco Workers Union-Association of Genuine Labor Organizations (PWU-AGLU), filed a Notice of Strike with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), claiming that petitioner engaged in unfair labor practices. Unable to settle their differences at the preliminary conference held before a Conciliator-Mediator of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB), the case was thereafter referred to the Office of the Secretary of the DOLE. The acting DOLE Secretary then issued a Decision dated June 13, 2007 ordering the Petitioner to Reinstate the Illegally Terminated employees, maintain the status quo and continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the existing CBA, and to REMIT the withheld union dues. Petitioner received a copy of the above Decision on June 14, 2007. It filed a Motion for Reconsideration on June 25, 2007. Private respondent, on the other hand, submitted a Partial Appeal. On August 15, 2007, the Secretary of Labor declined to rule on petitioners Motion for Reconsideration and private respondents Partial Appeal which the petitioner received on August 17, 2007, citing a DOLE regulation which provided that voluntary arbitrators decisions, orders, resolutions or awards shall not be the subject of motions for reconsideration. On August 29, 2007, petitioner filed before the CA an original Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition, and sought injunctive relief. On September 20, 2007, the CA issued the assailed Resolution which dismissed the petition ruling that petitioner erred in filing a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65, when it
should have filed a petition for review under Rule 43 thereof, which properly covers decisions of voluntary labor arbitrators. The CA added that since the assailed Decision was not timely appealed within the reglementary 15day period under Rule 43, the same became final and executory. Furthermore, petitioners unauthorized Motion for Reconsideration filed with the Secretary of Labor did not toll the running of the reglementary 60-day period within which to avail of certiorari. Petitioner then filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the CA through the second assailed December 14, 2007 Resolution. The CA held that the fact that the Acting Secretary of Labor rendered the decision on the voluntary arbitration case did not remove the same from the jurisdiction of the NCMB, which thus places the case within the coverage of Rule 43. ISSUES: 1. W/N THE THE PETITIONER AVAILED OF THE ERRONEOUS REMEDY IN FILING A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65 INSTEAD OF UNDER RULE 43 OF THE RULES OF COURT? 2. W/N THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS FILED OUT OF TIME? HELD: NO. It has long been settled that the remedy of an aggrieved party in a decision or resolution of the Secretary of Labor, when he assumes jurisdiction over a labor case in an industry indispensable to national interest, is to timely file a motion for reconsideration as a precondition for any further or subsequent remedy, and then seasonably file a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. The assumption of jurisdiction by the Secretary of Labor removed the case from the coverage of Article 262 and instead placed it under Article 263 of the Labor Code. Rule 43 does not apply to judgments or final orders issued under the Labor Code. The Petition for Certiorari was timely filed. Rule 65 states that where a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the petition shall be filed not later than 60 days counted from the notice of the denial of the motion. This can only mean that even though a motion for reconsideration is not required or even prohibited by the concerned government office, and the petitioner files the motion just the same, the 60-day period shall nonetheless be counted from notice of the denial of the motion. The very nature of certiorari which is an extraordinary remedy resorted to only in the
absence of plain, available, speedy and
adequate remedies in the course of law requires that the office issuing the decision or order be given the opportunity to correct itself. This opportunity for rectification does not arise if no motion for reconsideration has been filed considering that a decision of the Secretary of Labor is subject to judicial review only through a special civil action of certiorari and, as a rule, cannot be resorted to without the aggrieved party having exhausted administrative remedies through a motion for reconsideration, the aggrieved party, must be allowed to move for a reconsideration of the same so that he can bring a special civil action for certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Russell Carlson Testimony for Judge Peter McBrien Defense Team: Code of Judicial Ethics Violations Prosecution by the Commission on Judicial Performance – Character Witness Testimony by Judge Pro Tem Attorney Russell W. Carlson of Carlson & Gevelinger Law Firm – Sacramento Superior Court Corruption-Racketeering Allegations Evidence Catalog: 18 USC 1962 RICO Racketeering – 18 USC 1346 Honest Services Fraud – 18 USC 371 Conspiracy to Defraud United States – 18 USC 666 Theft-Bribery Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds – 18 USC 1341 Mail Fraud – 18 USC Wire Fraud – California Supreme Court Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Justice Goodwin Liu, Justice Carol Corrigan, Justice Leondra Kruger, Justice Ming Chin, Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, Kathryn Werdegar Supreme Court of California
California Judicial Branch News Service - Investigative Reporting Source Material & Story Ideas