Bagong Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa ng Triumph International vs.

Secretary of Labor
G.R. No. 167401, July 5, 2010

SUMMARY: In this case, the union and the company had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that
expired. The union seasonably submitted proposals to the company for its renegotiation, however, the
negotiations reached a deadlock, leading to a Notice of Strike of the union. The National Conciliation
and Mediation Board (NCMB) exerted efforts but failed to resolve the deadlock. Secretary Bienvenido E.
Laguesma (Labor Secretary) of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) assumed jurisdiction
over the labor dispute, pursuant to Article 263(g) of the Labor Code. The Labor Secretary resolved the
bargaining deadlock and awarded a wage increase. The unions other economic demands and non-
economic proposals were all denied. The union elevated the case to the CA, through a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The CA found the petition partly meritorious and
affirmed the Labor Secretary's wage increase award, but modified his ruling on the dismissal of the
union officers. The Court ruled that the Labor Secretary erred, to the point of abusing his discretion,
when he did not resolve the dismissal issue on the mistaken reading that this issue falls within the
jurisdiction of the labor arbiter. Pursuant to Article 263 of the Labor Code, the Labor Secretary has
been granted assumption of jurisdiction powers.

DOCTRINE: Article 263 of the Labor Code by granting the Labor Secretary assumption of jurisdiction
powers. Article 263(g) is both an extraordinary and a preemptive power to address an extraordinary
situation a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest. This grant is not
limited to the grounds cited in the notice of strike or lockout that may have preceded the strike or
lockout; nor is it limited to the incidents of the strike or lockout that in the meanwhile may have taken
place.
FACTS:
 The Bagong Pagkakaisa ng Manggawa ng Triumph International (“union”) and Triumph
Internationals (Phils.), Inc. had a collective bargaining agreement that expired on 18 July
1999.
 The union seasonably submitted proposals to the company for its renegotiation. Among
these proposals were economic demands for a wage increase of P180.00 a day, spread over
three years.
 However, the parties failed to agree on the wage and a deadlock was reached as a result.
 The union filed a Notice to Strike before the National Council ad Mediation Board. Later on, it
was followed by the filing of the Notice of Lockout by the company due to the alleged work
slowdown.
 The union went on a strike three days later.
 In this case, pursuant to Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code, Labor Secretary Bienvenido E.
Laguesma of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) assumed jurisdiction over
the labor dispute and resolved the bargaining deadlock by awarding a wage increase of
P48.00 distributed over three years.
 The union’s other economic demands and non-economic proposals were all denied.
 However, the Labor Secretary ruled that the legality of the union officers’ dismissal properly
falls within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter under Article 217 of
the Labor Code.
 The union elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, through a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
 The CA found the petition partly meritorious. It affirmed the Labor Secretary's wage increase
award, but modified his ruling on the dismissal of the union officers.
ISSUE:
 Whether or not the Labor Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion on not
deciding the illegal dismissal issue.
RULING:
 Yes. The Court held that the Labor Secretary abused his discretion when he did not resolve
the dismissal issue on the mistaken reading that the issue falls within the jurisdiction of the
labor arbiter.
 In this case, what the Labor Secretary refused to rule upon was the dismissal from
employment that resulted from the strike.
 Article 263 (g) is both an extraordinary and a preemptive power to address an extraordinary
situation- a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest. It is not
only limited to the grounds cited in the notice of strike or lockout that may have preceded
the strike or lockout; nor is it limited to the incidents of the strike or lockout that in the
meanwhile may have taken place.
 As the term "assume jurisdiction" connotes, the intent of the law is to give the Labor
Secretary full authority to resolve all matters within the dispute that gave rise to or which
 arose out of the strike or lockout; it includes and extends to all questions and controversies
arising from or related to the dispute, including cases over which the labor arbiter has
exclusive jurisdiction.
 Therefore, the dismissal issue was properly brought before the Labor Secretary and this
development in fact gave rise to his mistaken ruling that the matter is legally within the
jurisdiction of the labor arbiter to decide.

International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. vs, Sec. of Labor

G.R. No. 92981-83

SUMMARY: In this case, considering that the Company belongs to an industry indispensable to
national interest, it being engaged in the manufacture of drugs and pharmaceuticals and employing
around 600 workers, then Acting Secretary of Labor, Ricardo C. Castro, invoking Article 263(g) of the
Labor Code, issued an order assuming jurisdiction over the case. The Court held in this case that there
is no grave abuse of discretion committed by the Secretary of Labor and Employment because he 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.

DOCTRINE: The 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.

FACTS:

 Prior to the expiration on January 1, 1989 of the collective bargaining agreement between
petitioner International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (hereafter, Company) and the Associated
Labor Union (Union, for brevity), the latter submitted to the Company its economic and
political demands. These were not met by the Company, hence a deadlock ensued.

 Later on, the Union filed a notice of strike with Regional Office No. VII of the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board, Department of Labor and Employment.

 After all conciliation efforts had failed, the Union went on strike.

 Subsequently, three other labor cases involving the same parties were filed with the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

 Meanwhile, considering that the Company belongs to an industry indispensable to national

interest, it being engaged in the manufacture of drugs and pharmaceuticals and employing
around 600 workers, then Acting Secretary of Labor, Ricardo C. Castro, invoking Article
263(g) of the Labor Code, issued an order dated September 26, 1989 assuming jurisdiction
over the aforesaid case.

 Petitioner Company submits that the exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide NLRC cases is
vested in the labor arbiter as provided in paragraph (a) (1) and (5) of Article 217 of the
Labor Code.

ISSUE:
 Whether or not the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment has the
power to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute and its incidental controversies,
including unfair labor practice cases, causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in
an industry indispensable to the national interest.
RULING:
 Yes. In the present case, the 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.

 Moreover, Article 217 of the Labor Code is not without, but contemplates, exceptions
thereto.

 This is evident from the opening proviso therein reading "(e)xcept as otherwise provided
under this Code . . ." 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 the Court 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 .

 In fine, the issuance of the assailed orders is within the province of the Secretary as
authorized by Article 263(g) of the Labor Code and Article 217(a) (1) and (5) of the same
Code, taken conjointly and rationally construed to subserve the objective of the jurisdiction
vested in the Secretary.

 In the present case, however, by virtue of Article 263(g) of the Labor Code, the Secretary has
been conferred jurisdiction over cases which would otherwise be under the original and
exclusive jurisdiction of labor arbiters.

 There was an existing labor dispute as a result of a deadlock in the negotiation for a
collective bargaining agreement and the consequent strike, over which the Secretary
assumed jurisdiction pursuant to Article 263(g) of the Labor Code.

 The NLRC cases were just offshoots of the stalemate in the negotiations and the strike.

 Therefore, the Court upholds the Secretary's order to consolidate the NLRC cases with the
labor dispute pending before him and his subsequent assumption of jurisdiction over the
said NLRC cases for him to be able to competently and efficiently dispose of the dispute in its
totality.

Maternity Children’s Hopsital vs. Sec of Labor

174 SCRA 632

SUMMARY: In this case, 10 employees filed a complaint with the Office of the Regional Director of
Labor and Employment for underpayment of their salaries and emergency cost of living allowances.
The Regional Director, thereafter, took steps to ascertain the truth of the allegations in the complaints.
Here, it was ruled by the court that this is a labor standards case, and is governed by Art. 128-b of the
Labor Code.

DOCTRINE: Labor standards refer to the minimum requirements prescribed by existing laws, rules,
and regulations relating to wages, hours of work, cost of living allowance and other monetary and
welfare benefits, including occupational, safety, and health standards.
Under the present rules, a Regional Director exercises both visitorial and enforcement power over
labor standards cases, and is therefore empowered to adjudicate money claims, provided there
still exists an employer-employee relationship, and the findings of the regional office is not contested by
the employer concerned.

Furthermore, the enforcement power of the Regional Director cannot legally be upheld in cases of
separated employees. Article 129 of the Labor Code, cited by petitioner is not applicable as said article
is in aid of the enforcement power of the Regional Director; hence, not applicable where the employee
seeking to be paid underpayment of wages is already separated from the service. His claim is purely a
money claim that has to be the subject of arbitration proceedings and therefore within the original and
exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter.
FACTS:
 In this case, there are ten employees of the Maternity Children's Hospital (MCH), petitioner,
employed in different capacities/positions.
 They filed a complaint with the Office of the Regional Director of Labor and Employment for
underpayment of their salaries and emergency cost of living allowances (ECOLAS).
 The Regional Director, thereafter, took steps to ascertain the truth of the allegations in the
complaints.
 Subsequently, the Labor Standard and Welfare Officers submitted their report
confirming that there was underpayment of wages and ECOLAs of all the employees by the
MCH.
 Based on report, the Regional Director issued an Order directing the payment of Php
723,888.58, representing the claims, to all the MCH's employees.
 MCH appealed the order to the Minister of Labor and Employment on the ground that the
Regional Director lacked jurisdiction to issue the Order.
ISSUE:
 Whether or not the Regional Director had jurisdiction over the case and if so, the extent of
coverage of any award that should be forthcoming, arising from his visitorial and
enforcement powers under Article 128 of the Labor Code.
RULING:
 This is a labor standards case, and is governed by Art. 128-b of the Labor Code, as amended
by E.O. No. 111.
 Labor standards refer to the minimum requirements prescribed by existing laws, rules, and
regulations relating to wages, hours of work, cost of living allowance and other monetary
and welfare benefits, including occupational, safety, and health standards (Section 7, Rule I,
Rules on the Disposition of Labor Standards Cases in the Regional Office, dated September
16, 1987).
 Under the present rules, a Regional Director exercises both visitorial and enforcement
power over labor standards cases, and is therefore empowered to adjudicate money
claims, provided there still exists an employer-employee relationship, and the findings of the
regional office is not contested by the employer concerned.
 Prior to the promulgation of E.O. No. 111 on December 24, 1986, the Regional Director's
authority over money claims was unclear.
 The complaint in the present case was filed on May 23, 1986 when E.O. No. 111 was not yet
in effect.
 The Court believes, however, that even in the absence of E. O. No.111, Regional Directors
already had enforcement powers over money claims, effective under P.D. No.850, issued on
December 16, 1975, which transferred labor standards cases from the arbitration system to
the enforcement system.
 Viewed in the light of PD 850 and read in coordination with MOLE Policy Instructions Nos.
6,7 and 37, it is clear that it has always been the intention of our labor authorities to provide
our workers immediate access (when still feasible, as where an employer-employee
relationship still exists) to their rights and benefits, without being inconvenienced by
arbitration/litigation processes that prove to be not only nerve-wracking, but financially
burdensome in the long run.
 E.O. No. 111 was issued on December 24, 1986 or three (3) months after the promulgation
of the Secretary of Labor's decision upholding private respondents' salary differentials and
ECOLAs on September 24, 1986.
 The amendment of the visitorial and enforcement powers of the Regional Director(Article
128-b) by said E.O. 111 reflects the intention enunciated in Policy Instructions Nos. 6 and 37
to empower the Regional Directors to resolve uncontested money claims in cases where an
employer employee relationship still exists.
 The proceedings before the Regional Director must, perforce, be upheld on the basis
of Article128(b) as amended by E.O. No. 111, dated December 24, 1986, this executive order
"to be considered in the nature of a curative statute with retrospective application."
 The Regional Director correctly applied the award with respect to those employees who
signed the complaint, as well as those who did not sign the complaint, but were still
connected with the hospital at the time the complaint was filed.
 The justification for the award to this group of employees who were not signatories to the
complaint is that the visitorial and enforcement powers given to the Secretary of Labor is
relevant to, and exercisable over establishments not over the individual
members/employees, because what is sought to be achieved by its exercise is the
observance of, and/or compliance by, such firm/establishment with the labor standards
regulations.
 Necessarily, in case of an award resulting from a violation of labor legislation by such
establishment, the entire members/employees should benefit therefrom.
  However, there is no legal justification for the award in favor of those employees who were
no longer connected with the hospital at the time the complaint was filed, having resigned
therefrom in 1984.
 The enforcement power of the Regional Director cannot legally be upheld in cases of
separated employees. Article 129 of the Labor Code, cited by petitioner (p. 54,Rollo) is not
applicable as said article is in aid of the enforcement power of the Regional Director; hence,
not applicable where the employee seeking to be paid underpayment of wages is already
separated from the service. His claim is purely a money claim that has to be the subject
of arbitration proceedings and therefore within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the
Labor Arbiter.

Odin Security Agency vs Dela Serna

182 SCRA 472

SUMMARY: In this case, there are fifty-six employees who filed a complaint against OSA. Subsequently,
the Regional Director ruled for the employees and granted the monetary awards. OSA later on
questioned through certiorari and prohibition the jurisdiction of the Regional Director and the
Undersecretary. The DOLE Regional Director and Undersecretary have jurisdiction over the
claims. The Regional Director and the Undersecretary did
have jurisdiction over the respondents’ complaint which was originally for violation of
labor standards (Art. 128 (b) ,Labor Code). Once vested, that
jurisdiction continued until the entire controversy was decided.

DOCTRINE: A Regional Director exercises both visitorial and enforcement power over
labor standards cases, and is therefore empowered to adjudicate money claims, provided
there still exists an employer-employer relationship, and the findings of the regional office
is not contested by the employer concerned.
FACTS:
 In this case, there are fifty-six employees who filed a complaint against OSA charging them
with underpayment of wages, illegal deductions, non-payment of night shift differential,
overtime pay, premium pay for holiday work, rest days and Sundays, service incentive
leaves, vacation and sick leaves, and 13th month pay.
 There were conciliation conducted but they still failed and so the parties submitted their
respective position papers.
 Subsequently, the Regional Director ruled for the employees and granted the monetary
awards.
 Upon appeal, the Undersecretary affirmed the decision and also ordered the reinstatement
of the remaining 15 complainants.
 OSA later on questioned through certiorari and prohibition the jurisdiction of the Regional
Director and the Undersecretary.
ISSUE
 Whether or not the Regional Director and Undersecretary have jurisdiction.
RULING:
 YES. the DOLE Regional Director and Undersecretary have jurisdiction over the
claims.
 The Regional Director and the Undersecretary did
have jurisdiction over the respondents’ complaint which was originally for
violation of labor standards (Art. 128 (b) ,Labor Code).
 Once vested, that jurisdiction continued until the entire controversy was decided.
 Under Article 128 (b) of the Labor Code as amended by EO 111, the Regional
Directors, in representation of the Secretary of Labor and
notwithstanding the grant of exclusive original jurisdiction to Labor Arbiters by A
rticle 217 of the Labor Code, have power to hear cases involving violations of
labor standards provisions of the Labor Code or other legislation discovered in the
course of normal inspection, and order compliance therewith, provided
that' (1) the alleged violations of the employer involve persons who are still his
employees, i.e., not dismissed, and (2) the employer does not contest the findings
of the labor regulations officer or raise issues which cannot be resolved without
 considering evidentiary matters that are not verifiable in the normal course
of inspection.
 Hence, under the present rules, a Regional Director exercises both visitorial and
enforcement power over labor standards cases, and is therefore empowered to
adjudicate money claims, provided there still exists an employer-employee
relationship, and the findings of the regional office not contested by the employer
concerned.