G.R. No.

140518

December 16, 2004

MANILA DIAMOND HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION, petitioner,

vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, THE SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, and THE
MANILA DIAMOND HOTEL, respondents.
FACTS:

This is a dispute between the Manila Diamond Hotel EEs Union and the Phil. Diamond
Hotel and Resort Inc. which owns the Manila Diamond Hotel.
In 1996, the EEs Union filed a petition for certification election seeking to be declared the
exclusive bargaining representative for the Hotels EEs; however, petition was dismissed
by DOLE. Notwithstanding, the Union subsequently sent a letter to the hotel informing it
of its desire to negotiate for a CBA. The Hotel refused, citing the dismissal of the Unions
earlier petition, and in response, the Union clarified that it was seeking to negotiate only
on behalf of its members and not the whole rank and file of the hotels EEs.
Afterwards, the Union filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB for the hotels alleged refusal
to bargain and for alleged ULP. Two months after, the Union staged its strike. DOLE
Secretary Trajano assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute and ordered compulsory
arbitration at the NLRC. He likewise ordered the strikers to return to work and the hotel to
accept them under the same terms/conditions prevailing before the strike.
Hotel MRd the Order of the Secretary and refused to accept the returning workers the
then Acting DOLE Secretary issued a new order modifying Trajanos order, directing that
the workers be reinstated only in the payroll Union alleged GAD on part of the Acting
Secretary and filed petition for certiorari before the Court CA dismissed the Unions
petition and affirmed DOLE Acting Secretarys order

ISSUE:

WON the order for reinstatement merely on the payroll constituted GAD. Yes.

HELD/RATIO:

General rule: Law favors voluntary mode of dispute resolution. However, Art. 263 (g) LC
allows DOLE Sec to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute involving an industry
indispensable to the national interest [(g) When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute
causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national
interest, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the dispute
and decide it or certify the same to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. Such
assumption or certification shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or
impending strike or lockout as specified in the assumption or certification order. If one has
already taken place at the time of assumption or certification, all striking or locked out
employees shall immediately return to work and the employer shall immediately resume
operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before
the strike or lockout. x x x] It is part of the States police powers and exercised in its right
to self-protection whenever strikes/lockouts become inimical to the national economy.
Under the same terms and conditions means actual reinstatement. It was an error on
the part of the Court of Appeals to view the assumption order of the Secretary as a
measure to protect the striking workers from any retaliatory action from the Hotel. This

Court reiterates that this law was written as a means to be used by the State to protect
itself from an emergency or crisis. It is not for labor, nor is it for management.
For payroll reinstatement to be valid, there has to be special circumstances rendering
actual reinstatement impracticable and none was established herein. There was, thus,
GAD.
Therefore, petition is granted and the assailed order is set aside.