2013 Labor Law, Q7

Philippine Electric Company is engaged in electric power generation and distribution. It is a unionized company with Kilusang Makatao as the union representing its rank-and-file employees. During the negotiations for their expired collective bargaining agreement (CBA), the parties duly served their proposals and counter-proposals on one another. The parties, however, failed to discuss the merits of their proposals and counter-proposals in any formal negotiation meeting because their talks already bogged down on the negotiation ground rules, i.e., on the question of how they would conduct their negotiations, particularly on whether to consider retirement as a negotiable issue.
Because of the continued impasse, the union went on strike. The Secretary of Labor and Employment immediately assumed jurisdiction over the dispute to avert widespread electric power interruption in the country. After extensive discussions and the filing of position papers (before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board and before the Secretary himself) on the validity of the union’s strike and on the wage and other economic issues (including the retirement issue), the DOLE Secretary ruled on the validity of the strike and on the disputed CBA issues, and ordered the parties to execute a CBA based on his rulings.
Did the Secretary of Labor exceed his jurisdiction when he proceeded to rule on the parties’ CBA positions even though the parties did not fully negotiate on their own? (8%)

Quick check

What power does the Secretary of Labor possess over labor disputes occurring in industries indispensable to the national interest?

Which of the following business activities is considered an industry indispensable to the national interest under labor law?

Does the Labor Secretary exceed jurisdiction by deciding unresolved CBA terms when parties fail to negotiate fully on their own?

What is the legal effect of the Secretary of Labor assuming jurisdiction over an ongoing strike in an essential industry?

Choices available with full access.

How does the Labor Secretary determine unresolved CBA terms after assuming jurisdiction over a national interest dispute?

Choices available with full access.

Unlock the full Labor Law answers

Learn more about these topics

1. Assumption of Jurisdiction
Under Article 278(g) of the Labor Code, when a labor dispute causes or is 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 or certify it to the National Labor Relations Commission for compulsory arbitration. Electric power generation and distribution is recognized as an industry vital to the national interest. The assumption of jurisdiction automatically enjoins any ongoing or intended strike, returning the parties to the status quo ante.

2. Plenary Assumption Power
The assumption power of the Labor Secretary is plenary and comprehensive, conferring full authority to resolve all issues involved in the labor dispute. When jurisdiction is assumed, the Secretary's authority is not restricted to deciding the validity of a strike; it encompasses resolving unresolved collective bargaining agreement terms, deadlock issues, and economic proposals. The failure of the parties to fully negotiate on their own does not divest the Labor Secretary of statutory authority to decide all underlying bargaining issues.

3. National Interest Exception
In industries indispensable to the national interest, the state's interest in maintaining essential public utilities supersedes private collective bargaining autonomy. When negotiations deadlock over ground rules or economic terms, the Labor Secretary intervenes to prevent widespread public disruption. Once jurisdiction is assumed and position papers are submitted, the Labor Secretary may validly prescribe the terms of the collective bargaining agreement and order its execution to bring complete closure to the labor dispute.

About these questions and answers
The questions reproduced here are the official texts of the Philippine Bar Examinations, published by the Supreme Court. They are reproduced for study purposes.The suggested answers are the author’s own.

They are not official answers, have no connection with the Supreme Court, the Office of the Bar Confidant, or any bar review institution, and are not endorsed by any of them. Official answer keys, where released, should be preferred over anything here.Nothing on this page is legal advice, and reading it creates no lawyer-client relationship. Do not rely on any suggested answer in an actual legal matter. Consult counsel on your own facts.Suggested answers reflect the law and jurisprudence the author considers applicable as of the date shown.

Where a question comes from an earlier examination, the suggested answer applies the law as it now stands, which may differ from the law in force when the question was given, and may therefore differ from what would have been the correct answer at that time. Where the difference is material, the answer notes it.The practice scoring feature measures wording overlap with the suggested answer. It is not a grade, carries no official weight, and says nothing about whether your reasoning is sound.Errors are possible. If you find one, please tell me and I will correct it.Last reviewed: October 2026