Manila electric company V hon.

Labor sect Quisumbing

Art 3 Section 8

Facts:

1. 1995 – MEWA informed MERALCO their intention to re-negotiate the terms and conditions of their
existing 1992-1997 CBA
- Hence it includes the remaining 2 yrs for that CBA
2. MERLACO agreed to it and even create a panel for that purpose
3. After several meeting presenting their proposals and counter proposals they did not came up to an
acceptable terms and conditions for their CBA
4. Which results to the repondents MEWA to file for a notice to strike on the grounds of bargaining
deadlock and unfair labor practices
5. NCMB conducted meetings for conciliation
6. The Petitioner then filed for a petition before the DOLE that the Sect of Labor should assume
jurisdiction to the matter and enjoin the strike which was then granted
- Decided for the conditions and terms of the CBA
7. MERALCO filed for a motion for reconsideration and that Sect of Labor committed grave abuse of
discretion
- he misappreciated the result of the grant, which could cause them financial viability
- And mewa for reconsideration on its motion for wage increase and other benefits
- Sect. modified again its decision
8. MERALCO AGAIN FILED FOR A RECONSIDERATION BECAUSE SECT OF LABOR COMMITTED A GRAVE
ABUSE OF DISECRETION FOR GRANTING SOME OF THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS
9. The union disputes the allegation of MERALCO that they committed grave abuse of discretion
- They just decided based on the constitution – right of labor, preotection of workers, just and
humane conditions of works
- The award should not be reversed because His decision is based on facts and law

SC
1. We have jurisdiction over it as mandated by consti the duty of judicial review
- it includes the review of the susbstance of his decision
2. We recognizethe policy for labor but Constitution is not a lopsided document
- it both protects the right of employee and employer
3. Constitutional yardstickshould not be used
- if there is other unconstitutional questions
- constitutional yardstick should not always be used
4. Standard of reasonableness
- wether Sect had been reaspnable in deciding the case
- standard of reasonableness. In layman's terms, reasonableness implies the absence of
arbitrariness; 16 in legal parlance, this translates into the exercise of proper discretion and to
the observance of due process. Thus, the question we have to answer in deciding this case is
whether the Secretary's actions have been reasonable in light of the parties positions and the
evidence they presented.
-