Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Casino Labor Assn. vs. CA
Casino Labor Assn. vs. CA
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 141020 June 12, 2008
CASINO LABOR ASSOCIATION, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, PIL. CASINO OPERATORS CORPORATION !PCOC" #n$
PIL. SPECIAL SERVICES CORPORATION !PSSC", respondents.
D E C I S I O N
PUNO, C.J.%
This petition for certiorari
1
assails the Decision
2
and Resolution
3
of the Court of Appeals (CA in
CA!".R. #P $o. %&'2(. The CA dis)issed the petition for certiorari filed b* the petitioner
a+ainst the ,irst Division of the $ational -abor Relations Co))ission ($-RC and denied
petitioner.s )otion for reconsideration.
The series of events /hich ulti)atel* led to the filin+ of the petition at bar started /ith the
consolidated cases
0
filed b* the petitioner labor union /ith the Arbitration 1ranch of the $-RC.
2n an 3rder
%
dated 2& 4ul* 15'6, the -abor Arbiter dis)issed the consolidated cases for lac7 of
8urisdiction over the respondents therein, Philippine A)use)ent and "a)in+ Corporation
(PA"C3R and Philippine Casino 3perators Corporation (PC3C.
3n appeal to the $-RC, the Co))ission en banc issued a Resolution
(
dated 1% $ove)ber 15'',
/hich dis)issed the separate appeals filed b* the petitioner on the +round that the $-RC has no
8urisdiction over PA"C3R.
Petitioner then elevated the case to this Court, via a petition for revie/ on certiorari,
6
entitled
C#&'no L#(o) A&&o*'#+'on ,. N#+'on#- L#(o) Re-#+'on& Co..'&&'on, P/'-'00'ne A.u&e.en+
1 G#.'n2 Co)0o)#+'on, P/'-'00'ne C#&'no O0e)#+o)& Co)0o)#+'on #n$ P/'-'00'ne S0e*'#-
Se),'*e& Co)0o)#+'on and doc7eted as G.R. No. 83422. 2n a Resolution
'
dated 23 4anuar* 15'5,
the Third Division of the Court dis)issed the petition for failure of the petitioner to sho/ +rave
abuse of discretion on the part of the $-RC.
Petitioner filed a )otion for reconsideration, but the sa)e /as denied /ith finalit* in a 1% March
15'5 Resolution.
5
The Resolution states, in part9
: : : An* petitions brou+ht a+ainst private co)panies /ill have to be brou+ht before the
appropriate a+enc* or office of the Depart)ent of -abor and ;)plo*)ent.
1ased solel* on that state)ent, petitioner filed a Manifestation<Motion
1&
/ith the $-RC pra*in+
that the records of the consolidated cases be =re)anded to the Arbitration 1ranch for proper
prosecution and<or disposition thereof a+ainst private respondents Philippine Casino 3perators
Corporation (PC3C and Philippine #pecial #ervices Corporation (P##C.=
Actin+ on the Manifestation<Motion, the $-RC ,irst Division issued an 3rder
11
dated 3& 4une
15'5, /hich +ranted the )otion and ordered that the records of the cases be for/arded to the
Arbitration 1ranch for further proceedin+s.
Respondents PC3C and P##C filed a )otion for reconsideration. 2n an 3rder
12
dated 22 4ul*
1550, the $-RC ,irst Division +ranted the )otion, set aside the 3& 4une 15'5 3rder for havin+
been issued /ithout le+al basis, and denied /ith finalit* the petitioner.s Manifestation<Motion.
Petitioner.s )otion for reconsideration /as li7e/ise denied in a Resolution
13
dated 2' $ove)ber
1556.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari
10
/ith this Court assertin+ that the $-RC ,irst Division
co))itted +rave abuse of discretion in i+norin+ the )andate of ".R. $o. '%522. Petitioner
ar+ued that, /ith the state)ent =(an* petitions brou+ht a+ainst private co)panies /ill have to be
brou+ht before the appropriate a+enc* or office of the Depart)ent of -abor and ;)plo*)ent,=
this Court laid do/n the la/ of the case and )andated that petitions a+ainst respondents PC3C
and P##C should be brou+ht before the $-RC. 1* /a* of resolution,
1%
this Court referred the
case to the CA in accordance /ith the rulin+ in S+. M#)+'n Fune)#- o.e& ,. NLRC.
1(
3n 22 4une 1555, the CA rendered its Decision dis)issin+ the petition for certiorari. The CA
found no +rave abuse of discretion on the part of the $-RC ,irst Division /hen it issued9 (a the
22 4ul* 1550 3rder, /hich set aside its 3& 4une 15'5 3rder re)andin+ the case to the Arbitration
1ranch for further proceedin+s> and (b the 2' $ove)ber 155' Resolution, /hich denied
petitioner.s )otion for reconsideration. Petitioner filed a )otion for reconsideration, /hich the
CA denied in its ( Dece)ber 1555 Resolution.
?ence, the instant petition for certiorari in /hich the petitioner raises this sole issue9
CA$ T?; C3@RT 3, APP;A-# 2"$3R; T?; MA$DAT; 3, T?; ?3$3RA1-;
#@PR;M; C3@RT.# R;#3-@T23$ 2$ ".R. '%522, T?AT P;T2T23$# A"A2$#T
PR2AAT; R;#P3$D;$T# PC3C A$D P##C #?3@-D 1; TR2;D 1B T?;
C3MM2##23$ ($-RC T?R@ 2T# AR12TRAT23$ 1RA$C?C
To deter)ine /hether the CA acted /ith +rave abuse of discretion correctable b* certiorari, it is
necessar* to resolve one core issue9 /hether the #upre)e Court, in ".R. $o. '%522, )andated
that the $-RC assu)e 8urisdiction over the cases filed a+ainst PC3C and P##C.
The resolution of the case at bar hin+es on the intended )eanin+ of the Third Division of the
Court /hen it stated in its 1% March 15'5 Resolution in ".R. $o. '%522, viD9
: : : An* petitions brou+ht a+ainst private co)panies /ill have to be brou+ht before the
appropriate a+enc* or office of the Depart)ent of -abor and ;)plo*)ent.
Petitioner considers the fore+oin+ state)ent as a le+al )andate /arrantin+ the re)and of the
consolidated labor cases to the Arbitration 1ranch of the $-RC for further proceedin+s a+ainst
respondents PC3C and P##C.
Ee do not a+ree.
A court decision )ust be read as a /hole. Eith re+ard to interpretation of 8ud+)ents, Re0u(-'*
,. De Lo& An2e-e& stated9
As a +eneral rule, 8ud+)ents are to be construed li7e other /ritten instru)ents. The
deter)inative factor is the intention of the court, as +athered fro) all parts of the
8ud+)ent itself. 2n appl*in+ this rule, effect )ust be +iven to that /hich is unavoidabl*
and necessaril* i)plied in a 8ud+)ent, as /ell as to that /hich is e:pressed in the )ost
appropriate lan+ua+e. #uch construction should be +iven to a 8ud+)ent as /ill +ive force
and effect to ever* /ord of it, if possible, and )a7e it as a /hole consistent, effective and
reasonable.
16
?ence, a close scrutin* of the full te:t of the 23 4anuar* and 1% March 15'5 Resolutions in ".R.
$o. '%522 sheds )uch needed li+ht. 2n the first Resolution, the Third Division of this Court
dis)issed the petitioner.s case in this /ise9
The issue in this case is /hether or not the $ational -abor Relations Co))ission has
8urisdiction over e)plo*ee!e)plo*er proble)s in the Philippine A)use)ent and "a)in+
Corporation (PA"C3R, the Philippine Casino 3perators Corporation (PC3C, and the
Philippine #pecial #ervices Corporation (P##C.
The present Constitution specificall* provides in Article 2F 1, #ection 2(1 that =the civil
service e)braces all branches, subdivisions, instru)entalities, and a+encies of the
"overn)ent, includin+ +overn)ent!o/ned or controlled corporations /ith ori+inal
charters.= (;)phasis supplied
There appears to be no Guestion fro) the petition and its anne:es that the respondent
corporations /ere created b* an ori+inal charter, P.D. $o. 1'(5 in relation to P.D. $os.
1&(6!A, 1&(6!C, 1355 and 1(32.
2n the recent case of $ational #ervice Corporation, et al. v. ?onorable Third Division,
$ational -abor Relations Co))ission, et al. (".R. $o. (5'6&, $ove)ber 25, 15'', this
Court ruled that subsidiar* corporations o/ned b* +overn)ent corporations li7e the
Philippine $ational 1an7 but /hich have been or+aniDed under the "eneral Corporation
Code are not +overned b* Civil #ervice -a/. The* fall under the 8urisdiction of the
Depart)ent of -abor and ;)plo*)ent and its various a+encies. Conversel*, it follo/s
that +overn)ent corporations created under an ori+inal charter fall under the 8urisdiction
of the Civil #ervice Co))ission and not the -abor Depart)ent.
Moreover, P.D. 1'(5, #ection 1', specificall* prohibits for)ation of unions a)on+ casino
e)plo*ees and e:e)pts the) fro) the covera+e of -abor Code provisions. @nder the
ne/ Constitution, the* )a* no/ for) unions but sub8ect to the la/s passed to re+ulate
unions in offices and corporations +overned b* the Civil #ervice -a/.
C3$#2D;R2$" the failure of the petitioner to sho/ +rave abuse of discretion on the part
of the public respondent, the C3@RT R;#3-A;D to D2#M2## the petition.
Thus, in resolvin+ the issue of /hether or not the $-RC has 8urisdiction over e)plo*er!
e)plo*ee relations in PA"C3R, PC3C and P##C, the Third Division )ade the definitive rulin+
that =there appears to be no Guestion fro) the petition and its anne:es that the respondent
corporations /ere created b* an ori+inal charter.= The Court collectivel* referred to all
respondent corporations, includin+ PC3C and P##C, and held that in accordance /ith the
Constitution and 8urisprudence, corporations /ith ori+inal charter =fall under the 8urisdiction of
the Civil #ervice Co))ission and not the -abor Depart)ent.= The Court stated further that P.D.
1'(5 e:e)pts casino e)plo*ees fro) the covera+e of -abor Code provisions and althou+h the
e)plo*ees are e)po/ered b* the Constitution to for) unions, these are =sub8ect to the la/s
passed to re+ulate unions in offices and corporations +overned b* the Civil #ervice -a/.= Thus,
in dis)issin+ the petition, the rulin+ of the Third Division /as clear ! ! ! it is the Civil #ervice
Co))ission, and not the $-RC, that has 8urisdiction over the e)plo*er!e)plo*ee proble)s in
PA"C3R, PC3C and P##C.
2n its )otion for reconsideration, petitioner la)ented that its co)plaint )i+ht be treated as a
=pin+pon+ ball= b* the Depart)ent of -abor and ;)plo*)ent and the Civil #ervice
Co))ission. 2t ar+ued9
: : : the petitioner /ill no/ be in a dile)na (sic for the reason, that the charter creatin+
PA"C3R e:pressl* e:e)pts it fro) the covera+e of the Civil #ervice -a/s and therefore
the petitioner, /ill no/ be in a Guandar* /hether it /ill be allo/ed to prosecute its case
a+ainst PA"C3R before the Civil #ervice Co))ission /hile its o/n charter e:pressl*
e:e)pts it fro) the covera+e of the Civil #ervice -a/ : : :
1'
The Third Division denied the )otion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated 1% March 15'5,
/hich contained the state)ent upon /hich the petitioner.s /hole case relies. The Court stated9
The petitioner states in its )otion for reconsideration that the PA"C3R charter e:pressl*
e:e)pts it fro) the covera+e of the Civil #ervice -a/s and, conseGuentl*, even if it has
an ori+inal charter, its disputes /ith )ana+e)ent should be brou+ht to the Depart)ent of
-abor and ;)plo*)ent. This ar+u)ent has no )erit. Assu)in+ that there )a* be so)e
e:e)ptions fro) the covera+e of Civil #ervice -a/s insofar as eli+ibilit* reGuire)ents
and other rules re+ardin+ entr* into the service are concerned, a la/ or charter cannot
supersede a provision of the Constitution. The fear that the petitioner.s co)plaint /ill be
re8ected b* the Civil #ervice Co))ission is unfounded as the Co))ission )ust act in
accordance /ith its covera+e as provided b* the Constitution. An5 0e+'+'on& ()ou2/+
#2#'n&+ 0)',#+e *o.0#n'e& 6'-- /#,e +o (e ()ou2/+ (e7o)e +/e #00)o0)'#+e #2en*5 o)
o77'*e o7 +/e De0#)+.en+ o7 L#(o) #n$ E.0-o5.en+.
C3$#2D;R2$" T?; ,3R;"32$", the C3@RT R;#3-A;D to D;$B the )otion for
reconsideration. This D;$2A- is ,2$A-. (e)phasis added
Petitioner contends that the =private co)panies= referred to therein pertain to respondents PC3C
and P##C, and conseGuentl*, this Court has laid do/n the la/ of the case in ".R. $o. '%522 and
has directed that the cases a+ainst PC3C and P##C should be prosecuted before the Depart)ent
of -abor and ;)plo*)ent or $-RC.
Petitioner.s contention is untenable. 2t is /ell!settled that to deter)ine the true intent and
)eanin+ of a decision, no specific portion thereof should be resorted to, but the sa)e )ust be
considered in its entiret*.
15
?ence, petitioner cannot )erel* vie/ a portion of the 1% March 15'5
Resolution in isolation for the purpose of assertin+ its position. The 23 4anuar* 15'5 Resolution
alread* ruled on the $-RC.s lac7 of 8urisdiction over all the respondents in the case ! PA"C3R,
PC3C and P##C. The Third Division neither veered a/a* nor reversed such rulin+ in its 1%
March 15'5 Resolution to petitioner.s )otion for reconsideration. A readin+ of the t/o
afore)entioned resolutions clearl* sho/s that the phrase =private co)panies= could not have
referred to PC3C and P##C for that /ould substantiall* alter the Court.s rulin+ that petitioner.s
labor cases a+ainst the respondents are co+niDable b* the Civil #ervice Co))ission, and not b*
the $-RC. 2n its assailed decision, the Court of Appeals ratiocinated9
;videntl*, the HMarch 1%I Resolution containin+ the Guestioned pronounce)ent did not
+ive le+al )andate to petitioner to file its Petition /ith the Depart)ent of -abor and
;)plo*)ent or an* of its a+encies. 3n the contrar*, the Resolution decided /ith finalit*
that petitions brou+ht a+ainst the PA"C3R or si)ilar a+encies<instru)entalities of the
+overn)ent )ust be filed /ith the Civil #ervice Co))ission /hich has 8urisdiction on
the )atter. The Guestioned pronounce)ent, to 3ur )ind, /as )ade onl* to illustrate the
instance /hen 8urisdiction is instead conferred on the Depart)ent of -abor vis!J!vis the
Civil #ervice Co))ission> that is, /hen the petitions are filed Ha+ainstI private
co)panies.
,inall*, as pointed out b* the 3ffice of the #olicitor "eneral, the sub8ect )atter of the
pronounce)ent in Guestion is =an* petition= not the petition filed b* petitioners.
-i7e/ise, the petition )ust be one /hich is brou+ht a+ainst =private co)panies= not
a+ainst private respondents. Apparentl*, the aboveGuoted pronounce)ent is intended to
be a +eneral rule that /ill +overn petitions filed a+ainst private co)panies. 2t is not
intended to be a specific rule that /ill appl* onl* to the petition filed b* herein
petitioners. Ehere the la/ )a7es no distinctions, one does not distin+uish. A fortiori,
/here the Guestioned pronounce)ent )a7es no distinctions, one does not distin+uish.
Ee a+ree /ith the CA. The state)ent that =(an* petitions brou+ht a+ainst private co)panies /ill
have to be brou+ht before the appropriate a+enc* or office of the Depart)ent of -abor and
;)plo*)ent,= upon /hich petitioner.s entire case relies, is of no conseGuence. 2t is obiter
dictum.
2n its )e)orandu),
2&
petitioner presents a second issue not other/ise raised in its petition for
certiorari, contendin+ that respondents /aived their ri+hts to controvert petitioner.s valid and 8ust
clai)s /hen the* filed a )otion to dis)iss the consolidated cases /ith the labor arbiter on the
+round of lac7 of 8urisdiction. ?o/ever, in our 2& Au+ust 2&&3 Resolution reGuirin+ the parties
to sub)it their respective )e)oranda, /e specificall* stated that =no ne/ issues )a* be raised
b* a part* in his<its Me)orandu).= Moreover, petitioner, in support of this additional issue,
presents its ar+u)ents on the )erits of the consolidated labor cases. This Court is not a trier of
facts. 2n S#n+'#2o ,. V#&8ue9, /e reiterated9
Ee discern in the proceedin+s in this case a propensit* on the part of petitioner, and, for
that )atter, the sa)e )a* be said of a nu)ber of liti+ants /ho initiate recourses before
us, to disre+ard the hierarch* of courts in our 8udicial s*ste) b* see7in+ relief directl*
fro) this Court despite the fact that the sa)e is available in the lo/er courts in the
e:ercise of their ori+inal or concurrent 8urisdiction, or is even )andated b* la/ to be
sou+ht therein. This practice )ust be stopped, not onl* because of the i)position upon
the precious ti)e of this Court but also because of the inevitable and resultant dela*,
intended or other/ise, in the ad8udication of the case /hich often has to be re)anded or
referred to the lo/er court as the proper foru) under the rules of procedure, or as better
eGuipped to resolve the issues since this Court is not a trier of facts. Ee, therefore,
reiterate the 8udicial polic* that this Court /ill not entertain direct resort to it unless the
redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts or /here e:ceptional and
co)pellin+ circu)stances 8ustif* avail)ent of a re)ed* /ithin and callin+ for the
e:ercise of our pri)ar* 8urisdiction.
21
2n this case, the Civil #ervice Co))ission is the proper venue for petitioner to ventilate its
clai)s.
The Court is not oblivious to petitioner.s plea for 8ustice after /aitin+ nu)erous *ears for relief
since it first filed its clai)s /ith the labor arbiter in 15'(. ?o/ever, petitioner is not co)pletel*
/ithout fault. The 23 4anuar* 15'5 Resolution in ".R. $o. '%522, declarin+ the lac7 of
8urisdiction b* the $-RC over PA"C3R, PC3C and P##C, beca)e final and e:ecutor* on
March 26, 15'5. The petitioner did not file a second )otion for reconsideration nor did it file a
)otion for clarification of an* state)ent b* the Court /hich petitioner )i+ht have thou+ht /as
a)bi+uous. $either did petitioner ta7e the proper course of action, as laid do/n in ".R. $o.
'%522, to file its clai)s before the Civil #ervice Co))ission. 2nstead, petitioner pursued a
protracted course of action based solel* on its erroneous understandin+ of a sin+le sentence in
the Court.s resolution to a )otion for reconsideration.
IN VIE: :EREOF, the instant petition for certiorari is D2#M2##;D. The assailed 22 4une
1555 Decision and ( Dece)ber 1555 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA!".R. #P $o.
%&'2( are A,,2RM;D.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Corona, Azcuna, Leonardo-de Castro, JJ., concur.
Foo+no+e&
1
@nder Rule (% of the Rules of Court.
2
Rollo, pp. ''!53. Pro)ul+ated on 22 4une 1555. Penned b* Associate 4ustice Ro)eo A.
1ra/ner, concurred in b* Associate 4ustices An+elina #andoval!"utierreD and Martin #.
Aillara)a, 4r.
3
2d. at 1&&. Pro)ul+ated on ( Dece)ber 1555.
0
$-RC!$CR!(!2331!'( entitled =Casino -abor Association (CA-A# v. Philippine
A)use)ent and "a)in+ Corp. (PA"C3R and Philippine Casino 3perators Corporation
(PC3C=> $CR!$#!11!%35!'( entitled =2n re9 $otice of #tri7e filed b* CA-A# v.
PA"C3R and<or PC3C=> $CR!&&!&3!&&'20!'6 entitled =CA-A# v. PC3C, Philippine
#pecial #ervices Corporation (P##C and PA"C3R.=
%
Rollo, pp. 2(!33. Penned b* -abor Arbiter 2sabel P. 3rti+uerra.
(
2d. at 30.
6
Treated as a special civil action of certiorari.
'
Rollo, pp. 0'!05.
5
2d. at %2.
1&
2d. at %3!%0.
11
2d. at %%!%6.
12
2d. at %5!(2.
13
2d. at 62!63.
10
Doc7eted as ".R. $o. 1315(3.
1%
Rollo, p. '%. Dated 1' $ove)ber 155'.
1(
".R. $o. 13&'((, #epte)ber 1(, 155', 25% #CRA 050. The Court ;n 1anc declared
that all appeals fro) the $-RC to the #upre)e Court Hpetition for certiorari under Rule
(% of the 1556 Rules of Civil ProcedureI should henceforth be initiall* filed in the Court
of Appeals as the appropriate foru) for the relief desired in strict observance of the
doctrine on the hierarch* of courts.
16
".R. $o. -!2(112, 3ctober 0, 1561, 01 #CRA 022, 003!000.
1'
Rollo (".R. $o. '%522, p. 32.
15
Policarpio v. Philippine Aeterans 1oard, 1&( Phil. 12% (15%5.
2&
Rollo, pp. 23%!206.
21
".R. $os. 552'5!5&, 4anuar* 26, 1553, 216 #CRA (33, (%1!(%2.
The -a/phil Pro8ect ! Arellano -a/ ,oundation