The petitioner challenged the DOLE Secretary's jurisdiction over an appeal from the regional director's decision regarding a union certification. The facts involved the respondents filing for certification which was approved over petitioner's objection. The regional director and Med-Arbiter ruled for respondents. The BLR director inhibited himself due to prior involvement as counsel for respondents. The Secretary ruled in the BLR director's stead, also ruling for respondents. The issue was whether the Secretary had jurisdiction over the appeal that was normally under the BLR director. The ruling was that the Secretary, exercising supervision over the BLR, had authority to directly resolve the issue in place of the inhibited BLR director.
The petitioner challenged the DOLE Secretary's jurisdiction over an appeal from the regional director's decision regarding a union certification. The facts involved the respondents filing for certification which was approved over petitioner's objection. The regional director and Med-Arbiter ruled for respondents. The BLR director inhibited himself due to prior involvement as counsel for respondents. The Secretary ruled in the BLR director's stead, also ruling for respondents. The issue was whether the Secretary had jurisdiction over the appeal that was normally under the BLR director. The ruling was that the Secretary, exercising supervision over the BLR, had authority to directly resolve the issue in place of the inhibited BLR director.
Original Description:
Consti, Executive power.
Power of Supervision and Control
The petitioner challenged the DOLE Secretary's jurisdiction over an appeal from the regional director's decision regarding a union certification. The facts involved the respondents filing for certification which was approved over petitioner's objection. The regional director and Med-Arbiter ruled for respondents. The BLR director inhibited himself due to prior involvement as counsel for respondents. The Secretary ruled in the BLR director's stead, also ruling for respondents. The issue was whether the Secretary had jurisdiction over the appeal that was normally under the BLR director. The ruling was that the Secretary, exercising supervision over the BLR, had authority to directly resolve the issue in place of the inhibited BLR director.
The petitioner challenged the DOLE Secretary's jurisdiction over an appeal from the regional director's decision regarding a union certification. The facts involved the respondents filing for certification which was approved over petitioner's objection. The regional director and Med-Arbiter ruled for respondents. The BLR director inhibited himself due to prior involvement as counsel for respondents. The Secretary ruled in the BLR director's stead, also ruling for respondents. The issue was whether the Secretary had jurisdiction over the appeal that was normally under the BLR director. The ruling was that the Secretary, exercising supervision over the BLR, had authority to directly resolve the issue in place of the inhibited BLR director.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1
Case Facts Issue/s Ruling Jurisprudence
Respondents filed a petition for Araneta, et al. v. Hon. M.
certification of pre-election with Gatmaitan, et al.,27 the DOLE. The Med-Arbiter approved the pre-election. pronounced that, if a certain Petitioner filed for cancellation of power or authority is vested by the certification due to the failure law upon the Department of respondent to submit its Yes. It is without question that Secretary, then such power or financial statements to the the appeal from the decision of authority may be exercised Bureau of Labor Relations. The the regional office is within the directly by the President, who Med-Arbiter still ruled in favor of jurisdiction of the BLR. Given the exercises supervision and control respondents. Petitioner appealed Does DOLE have Jurisdiction circumstances, the BLR director over the departments. This The Heritage Hotel Manila vs. the decision to the regional over the appeal? inhibited himself. Petitioner principle was incorporated in the NUWHRAIN director of the DOLE. The insists that the case should have Administrative Code of 1987, GR 178296 Regional director still rendered a gone to the subordinates of the which defines "supervision and decision in favor of respondents, BLR director. However, this control" as including the which prompted petitioners to happens in cases where the authority to act directly whenever appeal the decision to the director is incapacitated. This a specific function is entrusted by director of the Bureau of Labor does not obtain as the director law or regulation to a Relations. The director of the BLR merely inhibited himself. On the subordinate.28 Applying the inhibited from the issue, as he other hand, the Secretary of foregoing to the present case, it was previously the counsel of DOLE has powers of supervision is clear that the DOLE Secretary, respondents. The Secretary of and control over the BLR. As as the person exercising the Labor resolved the issue in the such, it may validly step into the power of supervision and control stead of the BLR director. She shoes of the BLR director and over the BLR, has the authority ruled in favor of respondents. resolve the issue. to directly exercise the quasi- Petitioner then filed for certiorari, judicial function entrusted by law challenging the jurisdiction of the to the BLR Director. DOLE Secretary. An appeal from the decision of the Regional Director is supposed to be under the jurisdiction of the BLR.