07 Ftwu v Minister of Labor

Free Telephone Workers Union vs. Min. of Labor (G.R. No. L-58184) PONENTE: Fernando, C.J PETITIONER: Free Telephone Workers Union RESPONDENT: Hon. Minister of Labor and Employment (MOLE), National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), and PLDT Company PROMULGATED: October 30, 1981 RELATED PROVISION/S: Article 264 of Labor Code (amended) by Batas Pambansa Blg. 130, Art 7 of 1973 Constitution, Sec 1, Art 6 (Valid Delegation of Powers) PETITION: A petition to REVIEW the decisions of the Minister of Labor and Employment FACTS: On September 14, 1981, the Ministry of Labor received a notice of strike for unfair labor practices stating the following: 1. Unilateral and arbitrary implementation of a Code of Conduct that is detriment of the interest of the members 2. Illegal terminations and suspensions of officers and members as a result of the implementation of said Code of Conduct; and 3.Unconformation of sick leaves which results to an automatic Absence Without Official Leave of Absence (AWOL), in violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Subsequently, several conciliation meetings between the FTWU and the Ministry of Labor were held with the petitioner manifesting its willingness to have a revised Code of Conduct that would be fair for all and with a plea suspend the current one; however, it failed to gain the approval of the respondent. On September 25, 1981, the respondent, Ministry of Labor, certified the labor dispute to the National Labor Relations Commission for compulsory arbitration and order of any strike. The respondent, following the lead of the petitioner, explained its side of the controversy of the provisions of the Code of Conduct which petitioner alleged were quite harsh for it resulted to what it deemed as indefinite preventive suspension – the apparent principal cause of the labor dispute. The petitioners assailed the constitutionality of the amendment and thus, filed for a petition for certiorari with prayer for a restraining order. ISSUE/S: W/N there was an undue delegation of power HELD/RATIO: 1. Article VII on the presidency starts with this provision: “All powers vested in the President of the Philippines under the 1935 Constitution and the laws of the land which are not herein provided for or conferred upon any official shall be deemed and are hereby vested in the President unless the Batasang Pambansa provides otherwise.”

2. In a similar case, Secretary of Interior, Justice Laurel said, “without minimizing the importance of the heads of the various departments, their personality is in reality, but the projection of that of the President.” Thus, ministers, who are in essence an extension of the powers of the president, are duly authorized by law to exercise administrative functions 3. The legislature does not abdicate its functions when it describes what job must be done, who is to do it, and what the scope of authority is. To avoid the taint of unlawful delegation, there must be a standard, which implies at the very least that the legislature itself determines matters principle and lays down fundamental policy. Batas Pambansa Blg. 130 cannot be any clearer, the coverage being limited to “strikes or lockouts adversely affecting the national interest.” RULING: The petition is DISMISSED. During the pendency of the compulsory arbitration proceedings, both parties are enjoined to good faith compliance with the provisions of Batas Pambansa Blg. 130.