E.
ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE SECRETARY OF LABOR/CERTIFICATION OF THE LABOR DISPUTE TO
THE NLRC FOR COMPULSORY ARBITRATION (ART 279, labor code)
293. SAULOG TRANSIT, INC., petitioner,vs. HON. MANUEL M. LAZARO, in his capacity as Presidential
Assistant for Legal Affairs, HON. BLAS F. OPLE, Minister of Labor and Employment, and ROBERT
AREVALO, respondents. G.R. No. L-63284 April 4, 1984
Facts: “All efforts at mediation and conciliation by the Minister of Labor and Employment failed. And in the
evening of the same date, January 23, 1981, the Minister issued the following Return-to-Work Order
“‘All striking workers of Saulog Transit, Inc. are hereby ordered to return to work immediately and to desist
from striking whether the strike is for cause or otherwise.
“‘The management is likewise ordered to allow all workers to return to work under the same terms and
conditions prevailing previous to the work stoppage.
“‘The Ministry shall however continue conciliating the dispute with a view to amicable settlement by the
parties on the issues raised.’
“More conciliation conferences followed. But the parties remained deadlocked on the key issues “
On January 29, 1981, the respondent Minister of Labor and Employment issued another order which provided
“1. All workers concerned shall return to work within two (2) days from 30 January 1981 and
management shall accept them back under the same terms and conditions existing prior to the walkout;
“2. The issues raised by the workers/employees as listed above shall be submitted for arbitration and decision
by the Ministry of Labor and Employment within ten (10) days from the submission of the respective position
papers by the parties.”
On February 4, 1981, respondent Robert Arevalo, acting on behalf of the private respondents, filed the
required position paper attaching the respondents’ documentary evidence. On February 9, 1981, the
petitioner filed a motion to secure an order requiring the private respondents to specify the names of the
“more or less 250 other complainants’ referred to in the position paper. On the same date, the respondents
wrote a letter to the Minister complaining about the petitioner’s refusal to comply with the return-to-work
order. The next day, the respondents submitted the list of the names of the two hundred sixty (260) other
complainants.
On March 2, 1981, the petitioner filed an omnibus motion praying that the case be dismissed.
ISSUE: (1) WON THE MINISTER ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE DISPUTE AND
THE PARTIES OF THE SAME EVEN ON THE GROUNDS THAT NEITHER A NOTICE OF STRIKE NOR A FORMAL
COMPLAINT WAS FILED WITH HIM BY ANY OF SAID RESPONDENTS.-----(YES)
Ruling: The above contentions are without merit. It is true that no notice of strike was filed by the respondents
and neither did they present any formal complaint to the Ministry before they actually went on strike. Such
facts, however, do not preclude the Minister from assuming jurisdiction. The petitioner has not shown that its
business of public transportation covering not only the entire province of Cavite but also connecting Cavite to
Metro Manila and to various other provinces and cities is not covered within the meaning and purview of
“vital industries” under Section 2(e) of the Rules and Regulations Implementing Presidential Decree No. 823 as
amended by Presidential Decree No. 849. As a vital industry, the business of the petitioner is governed by the
strict prohibition against all forms of strikes, picketing, and lockouts found in said decrees which were
applicable at that time.
It is a settled rule that a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his
opponent and after failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction. A party cannot
invoke jurisdiction at one time and reject it at another time in the same controversy to suit its interests and
convenience. The Court frowns upon and does not tolerate the undesirable practice of some litigants who
submit voluntarily a cause and then accepting the judgment when favorable to them and attacking it for lack
of jurisdiction when adverse. (Tajonera v. Lamaroza, 110 SCRA 447, citing Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 35).
The Labor Code provides that proceedings before the adjudicatory bodies of the Ministry of Labor are not
governed by the technical rules of procedure prevailing in courts of law or equity and are summary in nature.
Moreover, the decisions and orders of the public respondents are in keeping with the constitutional provisions
on social justice and protection to labor. (Sections 6 and 9, Article II, Constitution.) A denial of due process not
having been clearly substantiated, the decisions may not be set aside on the basis of procedural technicalities.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The questioned decisions of the public
respondents are AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner.
LABOR LAWS; LABOR RELATIONS; STRIKES IN VITAL INDUSTRIES; JURISDICTION OF THE MINISTER OF LABOR
NOT AFFECTED BY NON-SUBMISSION OF NOTICE OF FORMAL COMPLAINT OF THE STRIKE. — It is true that
no notice of strike was filed by the respondents and neither did they present any formal complaint to the
Ministry before they actually went on strike. Such facts, however, do not preclude the Minister from assuming
jurisdiction.
Confronted with the strike which virtually paralyzed the transportation services of the petitioner and taking
into account the inability of his Ministry’s intervention to bring about an amicable settlement between the
parties, the Minister rightly assumed jurisdiction. He did not have to wait for any notice of strike or formal
complaint about a strike already in progress before he could exercise the powers given to him by law to avoid
the strikes, picketing, or lockouts contemplated in the grant of power. An actual strike effectively paralyzing an
industry where strikes were not allowed and compulsory arbitration was mandated, called for his immediate
action. The respondent Minister did not need the recommendation of his own Under-Secretary or Deputy
Minister, under the facts of this case, to know what steps were necessary or that they were necessary to
achieve compulsory arbitration of the main issues which led to the impasse and the strike.
