BAGONG PAGKAKAISA NG MANGGAGAWA NG TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL, represented by SABINO F. GRAGANZA, Un !n Pres dent, "nd RE#$ILOSA TRINI%A% $.

SE&RETAR# OF THE %EPARTMENT OF LABOR AN% EMPLO#MENT "nd TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL 'PHILS.(, IN&. G. R . )*+,-) .UL# /, 0-)- THIR% %I$ISION BRION, .., F"1ts The Bagong Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa ng Triumph International (union) and Triumph International (Phils.), Inc. (company) had a collective bargaining agreement ( B!) that e"pired on #uly $%, $&&&. The union seasonably submitted proposals to the company 'or its renegotiation. !mong these proposals were economic demands 'or a wage increase o' P$%(.(( a day, spread over three ()) years. *owever, the parties 'ailed to agree on the wage increase and a deadlock was reached as a result. The +nion 'iled a ,otice o' -trike be'ore the ,ational ouncil and Mediation Board (, MB). The latter 'ailed to resolve the deadlock. This was 'ollowed by the subse.uent 'iling o' the ,otice o' /ockout by the company due to the alleged work slowdown. The union went on strike three days later. Pursuant to !rticle 01)(g) o' the /abor ode, /abor -ecretary Bienvenido 2. /aguesma o' the 3epartment o' /abor and 2mployment (34/2) assumed 5urisdiction over the labor dispute and resolved the bargaining deadlock by awarding a wage increase o' P6%.(( distributed over three years. The union s other economic demands and non7economic proposals were all denied. *owever, he ruled that the legality o' the union o''icers dismissal properly 'alls within the original and e"clusive 5urisdiction o' the labor arbiter under !rticle 0$8 o' the /abor ode. Iss2e 9hether or not the /abor -ecretary committed grave abuse o' discretion on not deciding the illegal dismissal issue R23 n4 :es. The -upreme ourt held that the /abor -ecretary abused his discretion, when he did not resolve the dismissal issue on the mistaken reading that this issue 'alls within the 5urisdiction o' the labor arbiter. !rticle 01)(g) is both an e"traordinary and a preemptive power to address an e"traordinary situation a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest. This grant is not limited to the grounds cited in the notice o' strike or lockout that may have preceded the strike or lockout; nor is it limited to the incidents o' the strike or lockout that in the meanwhile may have taken place. In the present case, what the /abor -ecretary re'used to rule upon was the dismissal 'rom employment that resulted 'rom the strike. !rticle 016 signi'icantly dwells on this e"act sub5ect matter by de'ining the circumstances when a union o''icer or member may be declared to have lost his employment. This was an issue that arose 'rom the strike and was, in 'act, submitted to the /abor -ecretary, through the union s motion 'or the issuance o' an order 'or immediate reinstatement o' the dismissed o''icers and the company s opposition to the motion. Thus, the dismissal issue was properly brought be'ore the /abor -ecretary and this development in 'act gave rise to his mistaken ruling that the matter is legally within the 5urisdiction o' the labor arbiter to decide.