VOL.

304, MARCH 10, 1999 405 Same; Same; Same; The remedy of an aggrieved party
National Federation of Labor vs. Laguesma is to timely file a motion for reconsideration as a
G.R. No. 123426. March 10, 1999. *
precondition for any further or subsequent remedy, and then
seasonably file a special civil action for certiorari under
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR (NFL),
Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.—Considering
petitioner, vs. HON. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, the above dictum and as affirmed by decisions of this
UNDERSECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF Court, St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRCsuccinctly
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, AND ALLIANCE OF pointed out, the remedy of an aggrieved party is to timely
NATIONALIST GENUINE LABOR ORGANIZATION- file a motion for reconsideration as a precondition for any
KILUSANG MAYO UNO (ANGLO-KMU), further or subsequent remedy, and then seasonably file a
respondents. special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997
Labor Law; Remedial Law; Certiorari; Court asserted Rules of Civil Procedure.
power to pass upon the decisions and discretionary acts of
the NLRC as well as the Secretary of Labor in the face of the _________________
contention that no judicial review is provided by the Labor *EN BANC.
Code.—We have always emphatically asserted our power to 406
pass upon the decisions and discretionary acts of the NLRC 4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
as well as the Secretary of Labor in the face of the
06
contention that no judicial review is provided by the Labor
National Federation of Labor vs. Laguesma
Code. We stated in San Miguel Corporation v. Secretary of
Labor thus: x x x. It is generally understood that as to Same; Same; Same; The special civil action of certiorari
administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial or was and still is the proper vehicle for judicial review of
legislative power there is an underlying power in the courts decision of the NLRC.—The propriety of Rule 65 as a
to scrutinize the acts of such agencies on questions of law remedy was highlighted in St. Martin Funeral Homes v.
and jurisdiction even though no right of review is given by NLRC, where the legislative history of the pertinent
statute (73 C.J.S. 506, note 56). The purpose of judicial statutes on judicial review of cases decided under the Labor
review is to keep the administrative agency within its Code was traced, leading to and supporting the thesis that
jurisdiction and protect substantial rights of parties “since appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme Court were
affected by its decision (73 C.J.S. 507, Sec. 165). It is part of eliminated, the legislative intendment was that the special
the system of checks and balances which restricts the civil action of certiorari was and still is the proper vehicle
separation of powers and forestalls arbitrary and unjust for judicial review of decision of the NLRC” and
adjudications. consequently “all references in the amended Section 9 of
B.P. No. 129 to supposed appeals from the NLRC to the
Supreme Court are interpreted and hereby declared to industrial peace,” further eliminated appeals from the
mean and refer to petitions for certiorari under Rule 65.” NLRC to the Secretary
Same; Same; Same; All such petitions should be 407
initially filed in the Court of Appeals in strict observance of VOL. 304, MARCH 10, 1999 407
the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts.—Proceeding National Federation of Labor vs. Laguesma
therefrom and particularly considering that the special civil of Labor but the President still continued to exercise
action of certiorari under Rule 65 is within the concurrent his power to assume jurisdiction over any cases which he
original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the Court of considered national interest cases.
Appeals, St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRCconcluded and Same; Same; Same; Decisions of the Secretary of Labor
directed that all such petitions should be initially filed in come to the Court by way of a petition for certiorari even
the Court of Appeals in strict observance of the doctrine on beyond the ten-day period provided in the Labor Code and
the hierarchy of courts. the implementing rules but within the reglementary period
Same; Same; Same; Court asserted in Scott v. Inciong set for Rule 65 petitions under the 1997 Rules of Civil
that while appeal did not lie, the corrective power of the Procedure.—From the foregoing we see that the Labor Code
Court by a writ of certiorari was available whenever a and its implementing and related rules generally do not
jurisdictional issue was raised or one of grave abuse of provide for any mode for reviewing the decision of the
discretion amounting to a lack or excess thereof.— Secretary of Labor. It is further generally provided that the
Significantly, we also asserted in Scott v. Inciongthat while decision of the Secretary of Labor shall be final and
appeal did not lie, the corrective power of this Court by a executory after ten (10) days from notice. Yet, like decisions
writ of certiorari was available whenever a jurisdictional of the NLRC which under Art. 223 of the Labor Code
issue was raised or one of grave abuse of discretion become final after ten (10) days, decisions of the Secretary
amounting to a lack or excess thereof, citing San Miguel of Labor come to this Court by way of a petition for
Corporation v. Secretary of Labor. certiorari even beyond the ten-day period provided in the
Same; Same; Same; P.D. No. 1367 gave the President Labor Code and the implementing rules but within the
the power to assume jurisdiction over any cases which he reglementary period set for Rule 65 petitions under the
considered national interest cases.—P.D. No. 1367 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
amending certain provisions of the Labor Code eliminated
appeals to the President, but gave the President the power SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.
to assume jurisdiction over any cases which he considered Certiorari.
national interest cases. The subsequent P.D. No. 1391,
enacted “to insure speedy labor justice and further stabilize The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Armando M. Alforque for petitioner.
 Marcelino F. Malate, Jr. Law Office for private On 2 January 1995, the Med-Arbiter issued an Order, the pertinent
portion of which reads as follows:
respondent. The petitioner is given five days from receipt of this Order to present proofs that it
has created a local in the appropriate bargaining unit where it seeks to operate as
KAPUNAN, J.: the bargaining agent and that, relative thereto, it has submitted to the Bureau of
Labor Relations or the Industrial Relations Division of this Office the following: 1)
A charter certificate; 2) the constitution and by-laws, a statement on the set of
Before us is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 officers, and the books of accounts all of which are certified under oath by the
Secretary or Treasurer, as the case may be, of such local or chapter and attested to
assailing the Resolution in OS-A-7-142-93 (RO700- by its President, OTHERWISE, this case will be dismissed.
9412-RU-037) dated August 8, 1995 of Undersecretary SO ORDERED.
On 9 January 1995, forced-intervenor National Federation of Labor
Bienvenido E. Laguesma, by authority of the Secretary (NFL) moved for the dismissal of the petition on grounds that petitioner
of Labor and Employment, setting aside the Resolution has no legal personality to file the present petition for certification
of the Med-Arbiter dated March 13, 1995. election and that it failed to comply with the twenty-five percent (25%)
consent requirement. It averred among others, that settled is the rule
The antecedents are summarized in the assailed that when a petition for certification election is filed by the federation
Resolution of Undersecretary Laguesma as follows: which is merely an agent, the petition is deemed to be filed by the
408 local/chapter, the principal, which must be
408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 409
National Federation of Labor vs. Laguesma VOL. 304, MARCH 10, 1999 409
Records show that on 27 December 1994, a petition for certification National Federation of Labor vs. Laguesma
election among the rank and file employees of Cebu Shipyard and a legitimate labor organization; that for a local to be vested with the
Engineering Work, Inc. was filed by the Alliance of Nationalist and status a legitimate labor organization, it must submit to the Bureau of
Genuine Labor Organization (ANGLO-KMU), alleging among others, Labor Relations (BLR) or the Industrial Relations Division of the
that it is a legitimate labor organization; that respondent Cebu Shipyard Regional Office of the Department of Labor and Employment the
and Engineering Work, Inc. is a company engaged in the business of following: a) charter certificate, indicating the creation or establishment
shipbuilding and repair with more or less, four hundred (400) rank and of a local or chapter; b) constitution and by-laws; c) set of officers; and d)
file employees; that the Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Baradero— books of accounts; that petitioner failed to submit the aforesaid
National Federation of Labor is the incumbent bargaining agent of the requirements necessary for its acquisition of legal personality; that
rank and file employees of the respondent company; that the petition is compliance with the aforesaid requirements must be made at the time of
supported by more than twenty-five percent (25%) of all the employees in the filing of the petition within the freedom period; that the submission
the bargaining unit; that the petition is filed within the sixty (60) day of the aforesaid requirements beyond the freedom period will not operate
period prior to the expiry date of the collective bargaining agreement to allow the defective petition to prosper; that contrary to the allegation
(CBA) entered into by and between the Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa of the petitioner, the number of workers in the subject bargaining unit is
Baradero-NFL and Cebu Shipyard Engineering Work, Inc. which is due 486, twenty-five percent (25%) of which is 122; that the consent
to expire on 31 December 1994; and, that there is no bar to its bid to be signatures submitted by the petitioner is 120 which is below the required
certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the rank and 25% consent requirement; that of the 120 employees who allegedly
file employees of the respondent company. supported the petition, one (1) executed a certification stating that the
signature, Margarito Cabalhug, does not belong to him, 15 retracted, 9 of
which were made before the filing of the petition while 6 were made after 25% of the rank and file employees in the bargaining unit, the Med-
the filing of the petition; and, that the remaining 104 signatures are way Arbiter is still empowered to order for the conduct of a certification
below the 25% consent requirement. election precisely for the purpose of ascertaining which of the contending
On 16 January 1995, forced-intervenor filed an Addendum/Supplement unions shall be the exclusive bargaining agent pursuant to the ruling of
to its Motion to Dismiss, together with the certification issued by the the Supreme Court in the case of California Manufacturing Corporation
Regional Office No. VII, this Department, attesting to the fact that the vs. Hon. Undersecretary of Labor, et al., G.R. No. 97020, June 8, 1992.
mandatory requirements necessary for the petitioner to acquire the On 20 February 1995, forced-intervenor filed its reply, reiterating all
requisite legal personality were submitted only on 6 January 1995 and its arguments and allegations contained in its previous pleadings. It
the certification issued by the BLR, this Department, stating that as of stressed that petitioner is not a legitimate labor organization at the time
11 January 1995, the ANGLOCebu Shipyard and Engineering Work has of the filing of the petition and that the petitioner’s submission of the
not been reported as one of the affiliates of the Alliance of Nationalist mandatory requirements after the freedom period would not cure the
and Genuine Labor Organization (ANGLO). Forced intervenor alleged defect of the petition.
that it is clear from the said certification that when the present petition On 13 March 1995, the Med-Arbiter issued the assailed Resolution
was filed on 27 December 1994, petitioner and its alleged local/chapter dismissing the petition, after finding that the submission of the required
have no legal personality to file the same. It claimed that the fatal defect documents evidencing the due creation of a local was made after the
in the instant petition cannot be cured with the submission of the lapse of the freedom period. 1

requirements in question as the local/chapter may be accorded the status The Alliance of Nationalist Genuine Labor
of a legitimate labor organization only on 6 January 1995 which is after
the freedom period expired on 31 December 1994. Forced intervenor OrganizationKilusang Mayo Uno (ANGLO-KMU) filed
further claimed that the documents submitted by the petitioner were an appeal from the March 13, 1995 Med-Arbiter’s
procured thru misrepresentation, and fraud, as there was no meeting on resolution insisting that it is a legitimate labor
13 November 1994 for the purpose of rati-
410
organization at the time of the filing of the petition for
410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED certification election, and claiming that whatever
National Federation of Labor vs. Laguesma _______________
fying a constitution and by-laws and there was no election of officers that
actually took place. 1 Rollo, pp. 23-27.
On 15 February 1995, petitioner filed its opposition to the respondent’s 411
motion to dismiss. It averred among others, that in compliance with the
VOL. 304, MARCH 10, 1999 411
order of the Med-Arbiter, it submitted to the Regional Office No. VII, this
Department, the following documents; charter certificate, constitution National Federation of Labor vs. Laguesma
and by-laws; statement on the set of officers and treasurer’s affidavit in defect the petition may have had was cured by the
lieu of the books of accounts; that the submission of the aforesaid
document, as ordered, has cured whatever defect the petition may have subsequent submission of the mandatory
at the time of the filing of the petition; that at the time of the filing of requirements.
petition, the total number of rank and file employees in the respondent In a Resolution dated August 8, 1995, respondent
company was about 400 and that the petition was supported by 120
signatures which are more than the 25% required by law; that granting Undersecretary Bienvenido E. Laguesma, by authority
without admitting that it was not able to secure the signatures of at least of the Secretary of Labor and Employment, set aside
the Med-Arbiter’s resolution and entered in lieu No. 130866, September 16, 1998, the Court re-
thereof a new order “finding petitioner [ANGLO-KMU] examined the mode of judicial review with respect to
as having complied with the requirements of decisions of the National Labor Relations Commission.
registration at the time of filing of the petition and The course taken by decisions of the NLRC and
remanding the records of this case to the Regional those of the Secretary of Labor and Employment are
Office of origin x x x.”
2 tangent, but all are within the umbra of the Labor
The National Federation of Labor thus filed this Code of the Philippines and its
special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
______________
Rules of Court raising the following grounds:
2 Id., at 29.
1. A.THE RESOLUTION OF PUBLIC 412
RESPONDENT HON. BIENVENIDO E. 412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
LAGUESMA DATED 8 AUGUST 1995 AND National Federation of Labor vs. Laguesma
HIS ORDER DATED 14 SEPTEMBER 1995 implementing rules. On this premise, we find that the
WERE ISSUED IN DISREGARD OF very same rationale in St. Martin Funeral Homes v.
EXISTING LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE; NLRC finds application here, leading ultimately to the
AND same disposition as in that leading case.
2. B.GRAVELY ABUSED HIS DISCRETION IN We have always emphatically asserted our power to
APPLYING THE RULING IN THE CASE OF pass upon the decisions and discretionary acts of the
FUR V. LAGUESMA, G.R. NO. 109251, MAY NLRC as well as the Secretary of Labor in the face of
26, 1993, IN THE PRESENT CASE. the contention that no judicial review is provided by
the Labor Code. We stated in San Miguel Corporation
We will not rule on the merits of the petition. Instead, v. Secretary of Labor thus: 3

we will take this opportunity to lay the rules on the x x x. It is generally understood that as to administrative agencies
exercising quasi-judicial or legislative power there is an underlying
procedure for review of decisions or rulings of the power in the courts to scrutinize the acts of such agencies on questions of
Secretary of Labor and Employment under the Labor law and jurisdiction even though no right of review is given by statute
Code and its Implementing Rules. (P.D. No. 442 as (73 C.J.S. 506, note 56).
The purpose of judicial review is to keep the administrative agency
amended) within its jurisdiction and protect substantial rights of parties affected by
In St. Martin Funeral Homes v. National Labor its decision (73 C.J.S. 507, Sec. 165). It is part of the system of checks
Relations Commission and Bienvenido Aricayos, G.R.
and balances which restricts the separation of powers and forestalls and hereby declared to mean and refer to petitions for
arbitrary and unjust adjudications.
certiorari under Rule 65.”5

Considering the above dictum and as affirmed by

Proceeding therefrom and particularly considering
decisions of this Court, St. Martin Funeral Homes v.
that the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65
NLRCsuccinctly pointed out, the remedy of an
is within the concurrent original jurisdiction of the
aggrieved party is to timely file a motion for
Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, St. Martin
reconsideration as a precondition for any further or
Funeral Homes v. NLRC concluded and directed that
subsequent remedy, and then seasonably file a special
all such petitions should be initially filed in the Court
civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997
of Appeals in strict observance of the doctrine on the
Rules of Civil Procedure.
hierarchy of courts.
The propriety of Rule 65 as a remedy was
In the original rendering of the Labor Code, Art.
highlighted in St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC,
222 thereof provided that the decisions of the NLRC
where the legislative history of the pertinent statutes
are appealable to the Secretary of Labor on specified
on judicial review of cases decided under the Labor
grounds. The decisions of the Secretary of Labor may
6

Code was traced, leading to and supporting the thesis

be appealed to the President of the Philippines subject
that “since appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme
to such conditions or limitations as the President may
Court were eliminated, the legislative intendment was
direct.
that the special civil action of certiorari was and still is
Thus under the state of the law then, this Court had
the proper
ruled that original actions for certiorari and
_______________ prohibition filed with this Court against the decision of
the Secretary of Labor passing upon the decision of the
64 SCRA 56 (1975). Cited fn. 11 St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC.
NLRC were unavailing for mere error of judgment as
3

413
VOL. 304, MARCH 10, 1999 413 there was a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
National Federation of Labor vs. Laguesma ordinary course of law, which was an appeal to the
vehicle for judicial review of decision of the President. We said in the 1975 case, Scott v.
NLRC” and consequently “all references in the
4
Inciong, quoting Nation Multi Service Labor Union v.
7

amended Section 9 of B.P. No. 129 to supposed appeals Ag-

from the NLRC to the Supreme Court are interpreted _______________
 4

5
At pp. 13-14.
At p. 15.
cases. The subsequent P.D. No. 1391, enacted “to 12

6 Art. 223. x x x. insure speedy labor justice and further stabilize

industrial peace,” further eliminated appeals from the
1. (a)If there is a prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion;
2. (b)If made purely on questions of law; and
NLRC to the Secretary of Labor but the President still
3. (c)If there is a showing that the national security or social and economic continued to exercise his power to assume jurisdiction
stability is threatened.
over any cases which he considered national interest
7 68 SCRA 473 (1975).
cases. 13

414
_________________
414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
National Federation of Labor vs. Laguesma 8 64 SCRA 274 (1975).
Also Confederation of Citizens Labor Unions (CCLU) v. National Labor
caoili: “It is also a matter of significance that there
9
8
Relations Commission, 60 SCRA 450 (1974).
was an appeal to the President. So it is explicitly 10 See footnote No. 3.

11 Entitled “Further Amending Certain Provisions of Book V of Presidential

provided by the Decree. That was a remedy both Decree No. 442, Otherwise Known as the Labor Code of the Philippines, As
adequate and appropriate. It was in line with the Amended.” Issued May 1, 1978.
12 Entitled “Amending Book V of the Labor Code of the Philippines to Insure

executive determination, after the proclamation of Speedy Labor Justice and Further Stabilize Industrial Peace.”Issued May 29,
martial law, to leave the solution of labor disputes as 1978.
13 Section 7, Rule II of the Rules Implementing Presidential Decree No. 1391

much as possible to administrative agencies and effective September 15, 1978 provides that “[t]here shall henceforth be no appeal
correspondingly to limit judicial participation.” 9 from decisions [of the Commission] to the Minister of Labor except as provided in
PD 1367 and its implementing rules concerning appeals to the Prime Minister,
Significantly, we also asserted in Scott v. and the
Inciong that while appeal did not lie, the corrective 415
power of this Court by a writ of certiorari was VOL. 304, MARCH 10, 1999 415
available whenever a jurisdictional issue was raised or National Federation of Labor vs. Laguesma
one of grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or Though appeals from the NLRC to the Secretary of
excess thereof, citing San Miguel Corporation v. Labor were eliminated, presently there are several
Secretary of Labor. 10
instances in the Labor Code and its implementing and
P.D. No. 1367 amending certain provisions of the
11
related rules where an appeal can be filed with the
Labor Code eliminated appeals to the President, but Office of the Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of
gave the President the power to assume jurisdiction Labor issues a ruling, to wit:
over any cases which he considered national interest (1) Under the Rules and Regulations Governing Recruitment and
Placement Agencies for Local Employment dated June 5, 1997
14
superseding certain provisions of Book I (Pre-Employment) of the Section 6 of Rule VI (Health and Safety Cases) provides that
implementing rules, the decision of the Regional Director on complaints the Secretary of Labor at his own initiative or upon the request of the
against agencies is appealable to the Secretary of Labor within ten (10) employer and/or employee may review the order of the Regional
working days from receipt of a copy of the order, on specified grounds, Director in occupational health and safety cases. The Secretary’s order
whose decision shall be final and inappealable. shall be final and executory.
(2) Art. 128 of the Labor Code provides that an order issued by the (2) Art. 236 provides that the decision of the Labor Relations Division
duly authorized representative of the Secretary of Labor in labor in the regional office denying an applicant labor organization, association
standards cases pursuant to his visitorial and enforcement power under or group of unions or workers’ application for registration may be
said article may be appealed to the Secretary of Labor. appealed by the applicant union to the Bureau of Labor Relations within
Section 2 in relation to Section 3 (a), Rule X, Book III (Conditions of ten (10) days from receipt of notice thereof.
Employment) of the implementing rules gives the Regional Director the Section 4, Rule V, Book V (Labor Relations), as amended by
power to order and administer compliance with the labor standards Department Order No. 9 dated May 1, 1997 provides that the decision of
16

provisions of the Code and other labor legislation. Section 4 gives the Regional Office denying the application for registration of a workers
the Secretary the power to review the order of the Regional Director, and association whose place of operation is confined to one regional
the Secretary’s decision shall be final and executory. jurisdiction, or the Bureau of Labor Relations denying the registration of
Section 1, Rule IV (Appeals) of the Rules on the Disposition of Labor a federation, national or industry union or trade union center may be
Standards Cases in the Regional Offices dated September 16, appealed to the Bureau or the Secretary as the case may be who shall
1987 provides that the order of the Regional Director in labor standards
15 decide the appeal within twenty (20) calendar days from receipt of the
cases shall be final and executory unless appealed to the Secretary of records of the case.
Labor. (3) Art. 238 provides that the certificate of registration of any
Section 5, Rule V (Execution) provides that the decisions, orders or legitimate organization shall be canceled by the Bureau of Labor
resolutions of the Secretary of Labor and Employment shall become final Relations if it has reason to believe, after due hearing, that the said labor
and executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the case records. organization no longer meets one or more of the requirements prescribed
The filing of a petition for certiorari before the by law.
Section 4, Rule VIII, Book V provides that the decision of the
_________________ Regional Office or the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations may be
appealed within ten (10) days from receipt thereof by the aggrieved party
decisions of the Commission en banc or any of its Divisions shall be final and executory. to the Director of the Bureau or the Secretary of Labor, as the case may
Issued by then Secretary of Labor Leonardo A. Quisumbing pursuant to Art. 5 of the
be, whose decision shall be final and executory.
14

Labor Code.
15 Issued by then Secretary of Labor and Employment Franklin M. Drilon. (4) Art. 259 provides that any party to a certification election
416 may appeal the order or results of the election as determined by the Med-
Arbiter directly to the Secretary of Labor who shall decide the same
416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
within fifteen (15) calendar days.
National Federation of Labor vs. Laguesma
Supreme Court shall not stay the execution of the order or decision ________________
unless the aggrieved party secures a temporary restraining order from
the Court within fifteen (15) calendar days from the date of finality of the 16 Issued by the Secretary of Labor Leonardo A. Quisumbing.
order or decision or posts a supersedeas bond. 417
VOL. 304, MARCH 10, 1999 417
 National Federation of Labor vs. Laguesma ________________

Section 12, Rule XI, Book V provides that the decision of the Med-Arbiter 17 Observation made in St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC.
on the petition for certification election may be appealed to the Secretary.
418
Section 15, Rule XI, Book V provides that the decision of the
Secretary of Labor on an appeal from the Med-Arbiter’s decision on a 418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
petition for certification election shall be final and executory. The National Federation of Labor vs. Laguesma
implementation of the decision of the Secretary affirming the decision to
conduct a certification election shall not be stayed unless restrained by of the Secretary of Labor come to this Court by way of
the appropriate court. a petition for certiorari even beyond the ten-day period
Section 15, Rule XII, Book V provides that the decision of the Med- provided in the Labor Code and the implementing
Arbiter on the results of the certification election may be appealed to the
Secretary within ten (10) days from receipt by the parties of a copy thereof, rules but within the reglementary period set for Rule
whose decision shall be final and executory. 65 petitions under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Section 7, Rule XVIII (Administration of Trade Union Funds and For example, in M. Ramirez Industries v. Secretary of
Actions Arising Therefrom), Book V provides that the decision of the
Bureau in complaints filed directly with said office pertaining to Labor, assailed was respondent’s order affirming the
18

administration of trade union funds may be appealed to the Secretary of Regional Director’s having taken cognizance of a case
Labor within ten (10) days from receipt of the parties of a copy thereof. filed pursuant to his visitorial powers under Art. 128
Section 1, Rule XXIV (Execution of Decisions, Awards, or Orders),
Book V provides that the decision of the Secretary of Labor shall be final (a) of the Labor Code; in Samahang Manggagawa sa
and executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt thereof by the Permex v. Secretary of Labor, assailed was 19

parties unless otherwise specifically provided for in Book V. respondent’s order setting aside the Med-Arbiter’s
(5) Art. 263 provides that the Secretary of Labor shall decide or
resolve the labor dispute over which he assumed jurisdiction within dismissal a petition for certification election; Samahan
thirty (30) days from the date of the assumption of jurisdiction. His ng Manggagawa sa Pacific Plastic v.
decision shall be final and executory ten (10) calendar days after receipt Laguesma, assailed was respondent’s order affirming
20

thereof by the parties.

the Med-Arbiter’s decision on the results of a
From the foregoing we see that the Labor Code and its
certification election; in Philtread Workers Union v.
implementing and related rules generally do not
Confessor, assailed was respondent’s order issued
21

provide for any mode for reviewing the decision of the

under Art. 263 certifying a labor dispute to the NLRC
Secretary of Labor. It is further generally provided
for compulsory arbitration.
that the decision of the Secretary of Labor shall be
In two instances, however, there is specific mention
final and executory after ten (10) days from notice.
of a remedy from the decision of the Secretary of
Yet, like decisions of the NLRC which under Art. 223
Labor, thus:
of the Labor Code become final after ten (10)
days, decisions
17
 (1) Section 15, Rule XI, Book V of the amended Section 5, Rule V of the Rules on the Disposition of
implementing rules provides that the decision of the Labor Standards Cases in Regional Offices specifying
Secretary of Labor on appeal from the Med-Arbiter’s the Supreme Court as the forum for filing the petition
decision on a petition for certification election shall be for certiorari is not infirm in like manner or similarly
final and executory, but that the implementation of the as is the statute involved in Fabian v. Desierto. And 22

Secretary’s decision affirming the Med-Arbiter’s Section 5 cannot be read to mean that the petition for
decision to conduct a certification election “shall not be certiorari can only be filed exclusively and solely with
stayed unless restrained by the appropriate court.” this Court, as the provision must invariably be read in
(2) Section 5, Rule V (Execution) of the Rules on the relation to the pertinent laws on the concurrent
Disposition of Labor Standards Cases in Regional original jurisdiction of this Court and the Court of
Offices provides that “the filing of a petition for Appeals in Rule 65 petitions.
certiorari before the Supreme Court shall not stay the In fine, we find that it is procedurally feasible as
execution of the [appealed] order or decision unless the well as practicable that petitions for certiorari under
aggrieved party secures a temporary restraining order Rule 65 against the decisions of the Secretary of Labor
from the Court.” rendered under the Labor Code and its implementing
and related rules be filed initially in the Court of
_________________
Appeals. Paramount consideration is strict observance
18 266 SCRA 111 (1997). of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts,
19 G.R. No. 107792, March 2, 1998.
20 267 SCRA 303 (1997).
___________________
21 269 SCRA 393 (1997).

419 22 G.R. No. 129742, September 16, 1998, where we declared invalid Section 27

VOL. 304, MARCH 10, 1999 419 of R.A. No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989), together with Section 7, Rule III of
Administrative Order No. 07 (Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman),
National Federation of Labor vs. Laguesma and any other provision of law or issuance implementing the aforesaid Act and
We perceive no conflict with our pronouncements on insofar as they provide for appeals in administrative disciplinary cases from the
Office of the Ombudsman to the Supreme Court, on the ground that these violate
the proper remedy which is Rule 65 and which should the proscription in Section 30, Article VI of the Constitution against a law which
be initially filed in the Court of Appeals in strict increases the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
We note parenthetically that rules and regulations issued by administrative
observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts. or executive officers in accordance with, and as authorized by, law have the force
Accordingly, we read “the appropriate court” in Section and effect of law or partake the nature of a statute. Victorias Milling Co., Inc. v.
Social Security Commission, 114 Phil. 555 (1962).
15, Rule XI, Book V of the Implementing Rules to refer 420
to the Court of Appeals.
420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
National Federation of Labor vs. Laguesma
emphasized in St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC, on
“the judicial policy that this Court will not entertain
direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot be
obtained in the appropriate courts or where
exceptional and compelling circumstances justify
availment of a remedy within and calling for the
exercise of our primary jurisdiction.”
23

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant

petition for certiorari, together with all pertinent
records thereof, is hereby REFERRED to the Court of
Appeals for appropriate action and disposition.
SO ORDERED.
Davide,
Jr. (C.J.), Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Mend
oza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buen
a and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.
Petition referred to Court of Appeals for action and
disposition.
Note.—The special civil action of certiorari will not
lie unless a motion for reconsideration is first filed
before the respondent court to allow it an opportunity
to correct its errors. (Tan vs. Court of Appeals, 275
SCRA 568 [1997])

——o0o——