Republic of the Philippines

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