7K Corporation v. Eddie Albarico, G.R. No.

182295, June 26, 2013

FACTS: Eddie Albarico (Albarico) was a regular employee of petitioner 7K Corporation. 7K Corporation terminated
Albarico’s employment allegedly for his poor sales performance. Respondent had to stop reporting for work, and
he subsequently submitted his money claims against petitioner for arbitration before the National Conciliation and
Mediation Board (NCMB).

While the NCMB arbitration case was pending, respondent Albarico filed a Complaint against petitioner
corporation with the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for illegal dismissal
with money claims. The Complaint was decided by the labor arbiter in favor of respondent Albarico.

On appeal by petitioner, the labor arbiter’s Decision was vacated by the NLRC for forum shopping on the
part of respondent Albarico, because the NCMB arbitration case was still pending. The NCMB voluntary arbitrator
rendered a Decision finding petitioner corporation liable for illegal dismissal.

  The petitioner contended that the issue of the legality of dismissal was not explicitly included in the
Submission Agreement dated 19 April 1993 filed for voluntary arbitration and resolution. It prayed that the said
awards be set aside, and that only separation pay of P8,912.00 and sales commission of P4,787.60 be awarded.
The CA affirmed the Decision of the voluntary arbitrator.

ISSUE: Whether the voluntary arbitrator properly assumed jurisdiction to decide the issue of the legality of the
dismissal of respondent as well as the latter’s entitlement to backwages, even if neither the legality nor the
entitlement was expressedly claimed in the Submission Agreement of the parties.

RULING: The voluntary arbitrator properly assumed jurisdiction.

Art. 262. Jurisdiction over other labor disputes. The Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, upon
agreement of the parties, shall also hear and decide all other labor disputes including unfair labor practices and
bargaining deadlocks.

We also said in the same case that “the labor disputes referred to in the same Article 262 of the Labor
Code can include all those disputes mentioned in Article 217 over which the Labor Arbiter has original and
exclusive jurisdiction.”

It is clear that voluntary arbitrators may, by agreement of the parties, assume jurisdiction over a
termination dispute such as the present case, contrary to the assertion of petitioner that they may not.

Estate of Dulay v. Aboitiz Jebsen Maritime, G.R. No. 172642, June 13, 2012

FACTS: The heirs of Dulay initiated grievance proceedings against the company with the AMOSUP (seafarer’s
union) as they were claiming death benefits under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA).  

No settlement was reached during the grievance proceedings and for which reason; a complaint was filed
by the heirs with the NLRC for death and medical benefits and damages.  In the interim, and pursuant to a
provision in the CBA, the company paid the amount of PHP20,000 to the heirs which they argue is only their
liability under the CBA. 

On the other hand, the heirs insist that based on another provision of the CBA, they should be entitled to
US$90,000 although the amount of PHP20,000 initially paid may be considered as an advance.
The Labor Arbiter awarded death benefits to the heirs as prayed for which award was affirmed by the
NLRC.  Upon petition, the Court of Appeals set aside the decision of the NLRC and instead referred the matter to
the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) so that a voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary
arbitrators may be designated to resolve the dispute between the parties.   Petitioner contends that Section 10 of
Republic Act (R.A.) 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, vests
jurisdiction on the appropriate branches of the NLRC to entertain disputes regarding the interpretation of a
collective bargaining agreement involving migrant or overseas Filipino workers.

ISSUE: Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court against Voluntary Arbitrator’s decision
is a proper remedy

RULING: The petition is without merit. Article 261 of the Labor Code reads, thus:

ARTICLE 261. Jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators. – The Voluntary Arbitrator or
panel of Voluntary Arbitrators shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide all unresolved
grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and those
arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies referred to in the immediately
preceding article. Accordingly, violations of a Collective Bargaining Agreement, except those which are gross in
character, shall no longer be treated as unfair labor practice and shall be resolved as grievances under the
Collective Bargaining Agreement. For purposes of this article, gross violations of Collective Bargaining Agreement
shall mean flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with the economic provisions of such agreement.

The Commission, its Regional Offices and the Regional Directors of the Department of Labor and Employment shall
not entertain disputes, grievances or matters under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Voluntary
Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators and shall immediately dispose and refer the same to the Grievance
Machinery or Voluntary Arbitration provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

It is true that R.A. 8042 is a special law governing overseas Filipino workers. However, a careful reading of this
special law would readily show that there is no specific provision thereunder which provides for jurisdiction over
disputes or unresolved grievances regarding the interpretation or implementation of a CBA.

Philippine Electric Corporation v. CA, G.R. No. 168612, December 10, 2014

FACTS: PHILEC served Lipio a memorandum, instructing him to undergo training for the position of Foreman I
beginning on August 25, 1997. PHILEC undertook to pay Lipio training allowance as provided in the memorandum.
Ignacio, Sr., then DT-Assembler with Pay Grade VII, was likewise selected for training for the position of Foreman I.
On August 21, 1997, PHILEC served Ignacio, Sr. a memorandum, instructing him to undergo training with the
schedule of allowance.

Claiming that the schedule of training allowance stated in the memoranda served on Lipio and Ignacio,Sr.
did not conform to Article X, Section 4 of the June 1, 1997 collective bargaining agreement, PWU submitted the
grievance to the grievance machinery. PWU and PHILEC failed to amicably settle their grievance. Thus, the parties
filed a submission agreement with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board.

Voluntary Arbitrator Jimenez held in the decision that PHILEC violated its collective bargaining agreement
with PWU. PHILEC filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, alleging that Voluntary Arbitrator
Jimenez gravely abused his discretion in rendering his decision. PHILEC maintained that it did not violate the June
1, 1997 collective bargaining agreement.

ISSUE: Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court against Voluntary Arbitrator’s decision
is a proper remedy
RULING: This was not the proper remedy. Instead, the proper remedy to reverse or modify a Voluntary Arbitrator’s
or a panel of Voluntary Arbitrators’ decision or award is to appeal the award or decision before the Court of
Appeals. Rule 43, Sections 1 and 3 of the Rules of Court provide:

Section 1. Scope. This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and
from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of
its quasi-judicial functions. 

ART. 262. JURISDICTION OVER OTHER LABOR DISPUTES.

The Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, upon agreement of the parties, shall also hear and
decide all other labor disputes including unfair labor practices and bargaining deadlocks.

In Luzon Development Bank v. Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees this court ruled that the proper
remedy against the award or decision of the Voluntary Arbitratoris an appeal before the Court of Appeals. This
court first characterized the office of a Voluntary Arbitrator or a panel of Voluntary Arbitrators as a quasi-judicial
agency.