10.The Courts Ruling We first resolve the parties’ procedural questions. ABS-CBN wants the petition to be dismissed outright for its alleged failure to comply with the requirement of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court that the petition raises only questions of law.26 We find no impropriety in the petition from the standpoint of Rule 45. The petitioners do not question the findings of facts of the assailed decisions. They question the misapplication of the law and jurisprudence on the facts recognized by the decisions. For example, they question as contrary to law their exclusion from the CBA after they were recognized as regular rank-and-file employees of ABS-CBN. They also question the basis in law of the dismissal of the four drivers and the legal propriety of the redundancy action taken against. To reiterate the established distinctions between questions of law and questions of fact, we quote hereunder our ruling in New Rural Bank of Guimba (N.E.) Inc. v. Fermina S. Abad and Rafael Susan:27 We reiterate the distinction between a question of law and a question of fact. A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts; or when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of the facts being admitted. A question of fact exists when a doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances, as well as their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probability of the situation. We also find no error in the CA’s affirmation of the denial of the petitioners’ second motion for reconsideration of the March 24, 2006 resolution of the NLRC reinstating the labor arbiter’s twin decisions. The petitioners’ second motion for reconsideration was a prohibited pleading under the NLRC rules of procedure.28 The parties’ other procedural questions directly bear on the merits of their positions and are discussed and resolved below, together with the core substantive issues of: (1) whether the petitioners, as regular employees, are members of the bargaining unit entitled to CBA benefits; and (2) whether petitioners Fulache, Jabonero, Castillo and Lagunzad were illegally dismissed. 9.The Ruling of the Court The petition must fail. PEU contends that the Secretary should not have taken cognizance of the issue on the alleged illegal strike because it was not properly submitted to the Secretary for resolution. PEU asserts that after Philcom submitted its position paper where it raised the issue of the legality of the strike, PEU immediately opposed the same by filing itsManifestation/Motion to Strike Out Portions of and Attachments in Philcoms Position Paper. PEU asserts that it stated in its Manifestation/Motion that certain portions of Philcoms position paper and some of its attachments were irrelevant, immaterial and impertinent to the issues assumed for resolution. Thus, PEU asserts that the Court of Appeals should not have affirmed the Secretarys order denying PEUs Manifestation/Motion. PEU also contends that, contrary to the findings of the Court of Appeals, the Secretarys assumption of jurisdiction over the labor dispute was based on the two notices of strike that PEU filed with the NCMB. PEU asserts that only the issues on unfair labor practice and bargaining deadlock should be resolved in the present case. PEU insists that to include the issue on the legality of the strike despite its opposition would convert the case into a petition to declare the strike illegal. PEUs contentions are untenable. The Secretary properly took cognizance of the issue on the legality of the strike. As the Court of Appeals correctly pointed out, since the very reason of the Secretarys assumption of jurisdiction was PEUs declaration of the strike, any issue regarding the strike is not merely incidental to, but is essentially involved in, the labor dispute itself. Article 263(g) of the Labor Code provides: When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify the same to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. Such assumption or certification shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout as specified in the assumption or certification order. If one has already taken place at the time of assumption or certification, all striking or locked out employees shall immediately return to work and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout. The Secretary of Labor and Employment or the Commission may seek the assistance of law enforcement agencies to ensure the compliance with this provision as well as with such orders as he may issue to enforce the same.The Ruling of the Court The petition must fail. PEU contends that the Secretary should not have taken cognizance of the issue on the alleged illegal strike because it was not properly submitted to the Secretary for resolution. PEU asserts that after Philcom submitted its position paper where it raised the issue of the legality of the strike, PEU immediately opposed the same by filing itsManifestation/Motion to Strike Out Portions of and Attachments in Philcoms Position Paper. PEU asserts that it stated in its Manifestation/Motion that certain portions of Philcoms position paper and some of its attachments were irrelevant, immaterial and impertinent to the issues assumed for resolution. Thus, PEU asserts that the Court of Appeals should not have affirmed the Secretarys order denying PEUs Manifestation/Motion. PEU also contends that, contrary to the findings of the Court of Appeals, the Secretarys assumption of jurisdiction over the labor dispute was based on the two notices of strike that PEU filed with the NCMB. PEU asserts that only the issues on unfair labor practice and bargaining deadlock should be resolved in the present case. PEU insists that to include the issue on the legality of the strike despite its opposition would convert the case into a petition to declare the strike illegal. PEUs contentions are untenable. The Secretary properly took cognizance of the issue on the legality of the strike. As the Court of Appeals correctly pointed out, since the very reason of the Secretarys assumption of jurisdiction was PEUs declaration of the strike, any issue regarding the strike is not merely incidental to, but is essentially involved in, the labor dispute itself. Article 263(g) of the Labor Code provides: When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify the same to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. Such assumption or certification shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout as specified in the assumption or certification order. If one has already taken place at the time of assumption or certification, all striking or locked out employees shall immediately return to work and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout. The Secretary of Labor and Employment or the Commission may seek the assistance of law enforcement agencies to ensure the compliance with this provision as well as with such orders as he may issue to enforce the same.The Ruling of the Court The petition must fail. PEU contends that the Secretary should not have taken cognizance of the issue on the alleged illegal strike because it was not properly submitted to the Secretary for resolution. PEU asserts that after Philcom submitted its position paper where it raised the issue of the legality of the strike, PEU immediately opposed the same by filing itsManifestation/Motion to Strike Out Portions of and Attachments in Philcoms Position Paper. PEU asserts that it stated in its Manifestation/Motion that certain portions of Philcoms position paper and some of its attachments were irrelevant, immaterial and impertinent to the issues assumed for resolution. Thus, PEU asserts that the Court of Appeals should not have affirmed the Secretarys order denying PEUs Manifestation/Motion. PEU also contends that, contrary to the findings of the Court of Appeals, the Secretarys assumption of jurisdiction over the labor dispute was based on the two notices of strike that PEU filed with the NCMB. PEU asserts that only the issues on unfair labor practice and bargaining deadlock should be resolved in the present case. PEU insists that to include the issue on the legality of the strike despite its opposition would convert the case into a petition to declare the strike illegal. PEUs contentions are untenable. The Secretary properly took cognizance of the issue on the legality of the strike. As the Court of Appeals correctly pointed out, since the very reason of the Secretarys assumption of jurisdiction was PEUs declaration of the strike, any issue regarding the strike is not merely incidental to, but is essentially involved in, the labor dispute itself. Article 263(g) of the Labor Code provides: When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify the same to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. Such assumption or certification shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout as specified in the assumption or certification order. If one has already taken place at the time of assumption or certification, all striking or locked out employees shall immediately return to work and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout. The Secretary of Labor and Employment or the Commission may seek the assistance of law enforcement agencies to ensure the compliance with this provision as well as with such orders as he may issue to enforce the same.The Ruling of the Court The petition must fail. PEU contends that the Secretary should not have taken cognizance of the issue on the alleged illegal strike because it was not properly submitted to the Secretary for resolution. PEU asserts that after Philcom submitted its position paper where it raised the issue of the legality of the strike, PEU immediately opposed the same by filing itsManifestation/Motion to Strike Out Portions of and Attachments in Philcoms Position Paper. PEU asserts that it stated in its Manifestation/Motion that certain portions of Philcoms position paper and some of its attachments were irrelevant, immaterial and impertinent to the issues assumed for resolution. Thus, PEU asserts that the Court of Appeals should not have affirmed the Secretarys order denying PEUs Manifestation/Motion. PEU also contends that, contrary to the findings of the Court of Appeals, the Secretarys assumption of jurisdiction over the labor dispute was based on the two notices of strike that PEU filed with the NCMB. PEU asserts that only the issues on unfair labor practice and bargaining deadlock should be resolved in the present case. PEU insists that to include the issue on the legality of the strike despite its opposition would convert the case into a petition to declare the strike illegal. PEUs contentions are untenable. The Secretary properly took cognizance of the issue on the legality of the strike. As the Court of Appeals correctly pointed out, since the very reason of the Secretarys assumption of jurisdiction was PEUs declaration of the strike, any issue regarding the strike is not merely incidental to, but is essentially involved in, the labor dispute itself. Article 263(g) of the Labor Code provides: When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify the same to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. Such assumption or certification shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout as specified in the assumption or certification order. If one has already taken place at the time of assumption or certification, all striking or locked out employees shall immediately return to work and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout. The Secretary of Labor and Employment or the Commission may seek the assistance of law enforcement agencies to ensure the compliance with this provision as well as with such orders as he may issue to enforce the same.The Ruling of the Court The petition must fail. PEU contends that the Secretary should not have taken cognizance of the issue on the alleged illegal strike because it was not properly submitted to the Secretary for resolution. PEU asserts that after Philcom submitted its position paper where it raised the issue of the legality of the strike, PEU immediately opposed the same by filing itsManifestation/Motion to Strike Out Portions of and Attachments in Philcoms Position Paper. PEU asserts that it stated in its Manifestation/Motion that certain portions of Philcoms position paper and some of its attachments were irrelevant, immaterial and impertinent to the issues assumed for resolution. Thus, PEU asserts that the Court of Appeals should not have affirmed the Secretarys order denying PEUs Manifestation/Motion. PEU also contends that, contrary to the findings of the Court of Appeals, the Secretarys assumption of jurisdiction over the labor dispute was based on the two notices of strike that PEU filed with the NCMB. PEU asserts that only the issues on unfair labor practice and bargaining deadlock should be resolved in the present case. PEU insists that to include the issue on the legality of the strike despite its opposition would convert the case into a petition to declare the strike illegal. PEUs contentions are untenable. The Secretary properly took cognizance of the issue on the legality of the strike. As the Court of Appeals correctly pointed out, since the very reason of the Secretarys assumption of jurisdiction was PEUs declaration of the strike, any issue regarding the strike is not merely incidental to, but is essentially involved in, the labor dispute itself. Article 263(g) of the Labor Code provides: When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify the same to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. Such assumption or certification shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout as specified in the assumption or certification order. If one has already taken place at the time of assumption or certification, all striking or locked out employees shall immediately return to work and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout. The Secretary of Labor and Employment or the Commission may seek the assistance of law enforcement agencies to ensure the compliance with this provision as well as with such orders as he may issue to enforce the same.
Posted on: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 02:40:08 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015