G.R. No.

203957, July 30, 2014 panel of Vas because such issue is considered a
University of Santo Tomas Faculty Union vs. grievance.
University of Santo Tomas

Facts:
USTFU demanded from UST, through its Rector
Fr. Ernesto Arceo, remittance of the deficiency in its
contribution (P65 M plus legal interest) to the
medical and hospitalization fund of UST’s faculty
members. USTFU also sent a letter accompanied
by a summary of its claims pursuant to their 1996-
2001 CBA.
Fr. Arceo informed the faculty union that the
aforesaid benefits were not meant to be given
annually but rather as a one-time allocation or
contribution to the fund. The union sent another
demand letter reiterating its position that UST is
obliged to remit to the fund. The union
subsequently filed a complaint for ULP against UST
before the arbitration branch of the NLRC.
UST sought the dismissal of the complaint on
the ground of lack of jurisdiction. It contends that
the case falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators
because it involves the interpretation and
implementation of the provisions of the CBA. That
the conflict must be resolved as grievance under
the CBA and not as ULP.
The LA ordered the UST to remit P18 M to the
hospitalization and medical benefits fund. Then, the
NLRC ordered UST to remit to the union P80 M for
the fund pursuant to the CBA.

Issue:
Whether or not the LA erred in assuming
jurisdiction over the case.

Ruling:
Yes, LA erred in assuming jurisdiction over the
case.
Under the Labor Code, the Voluntary Arbitrator
or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators will have original
and exclusive jurisdiction over money claims arising
from the interpretation or implementation of the
Collective Bargaining Agreement and, those arising
from the interpretation or enforcement of company
personnel policies.
In the present case, the misunderstanding
between UST and the union pertains to the
interpretation of the CBA’s economic provision on
economic benefits especially concerning the funds.
The same should have been resolved by the VA or
G.R. No. 121227, August 17, 1998
San Jose vs. NLRC and Ocean Terminal
Services, Inc.

Facts:
San Jose was hired sometime in July of 1980 as
a stevedore by Ocean Terminal Services, Inc. until
he was advised in 1991 to retire from service
considering that e already reached 65 years old.
He applied for retirement and was paid
retirement pay which is only P3,156.39. He thus
filed a case for a money claim because of
underpayment of retirement benefits.
The LA took cognizance of the case and arrived
at a computation of retirement differential.
However, the NLRC reversed such ruling on the
ground that the differential being claimed by San
Jose is based on the CBA and the interpretation
and implementation of which should be referred to
the grievance machinery or voluntary arbitrator.

Issue:
Whether or not the LA has jurisdiction over the
case.

Ruling:
No, the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the
LA for money claims is limited to statutes or
contracts other than a CBA. The Labor Arbiter had
no jurisdiction to hear and decide petitioner’s
money-claim underpayment of retirement benefits,
as the controversy between the parties involved an
issue arising from the interpretation or
implementation of a provision of the collective
bargaining agreement.
The Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary
Arbitrators has original and exclusive jurisdiction
over money claims arising from the interpretation or
implementation of the CBA, or implementation or
enforcement of company personnel policies.
 Whether or not the LA has jurisdiction over the
G.R. No. 101619, July 8, 1992 case.
Sanyo Philippines Workers Union-PSSLU Local
Chapter, et. al vs. Canizares, et. al. Ruling:
Yes.
Facts: Under Article 217 of the Labor Code that
PSSLU had an existing CBA with Sanyo which termination cases fall under the jurisdiction of the
contained a union security clause providing that Labor Arbiter. In the instant case, the Labor Arbiter
members covered by such agreement must retain and not the Grievance Machinery provided for in
their membership in good standing and that the the CBA has the jurisdiction to hear and decide the
union have the right to demand from the company complaints of the private respondents.
the dismissal of the members of the union by While it appears that the dismissal of the private
reason of their voluntary resignation or by reasons respondents was made upon the recommendation
of their having formed, joined, affiliated and/or of PSSLU, these facts do not come within the
supported another labor organization. phrase "grievances arising from the interpretation
PSSLU, through its national president, informed or implementation of CBA and those arising from
the management of Sanyo that the membership of the interpretation or enforcement of company
employees Yap et al. were cancelled for anti-union personnel policies”.
activities, economic sabotage, intimidation, The dispute has to be settled before an impartial
disloyalty and for joining another union. It appears body. Since there has already been an actual
that many of these employees were not members termination, the matter falls within the jurisdiction of
of PSSLU but of another union, KAMAO. Some the Labor Arbiter.
officers of KAMAO, which include Yap et al.
executed a pledged of cooperation with PSSLU
promising cooperation with the latter union and
accepting and honoring the CBA between Sanyo.
PSSLU wrote another letter to Sanyo
recommending the dismissal of Yap, et al. for the
same reason.
Sanyo sent a memorandum to the same workers
advising them that they are under preventive
suspension and should they fail to appeal the
decision of the union for dismissal said employees
shall be considered dismissed from the company.
Sanyo received no information on whether or not
said employees appealed to PSSLU. Hence, it
considered them dismissed.
Subsequently, the dismissed employees filed a
complaint with the NLRC for illegal dismissal.
PSSLU filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
alleging that the Labor Arbiter was without
jurisdiction over the case. The Labor Arbiter held
that termination dispute falling under their
Jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of the grievance
machinery and voluntary arbitration shall cover
other controversies.
PSSLU filed a petition alleging grave abuse of
jurisdiction on the part of the Labor Arbiter because
it had no jurisdiction over the dispute subject of said
complaint.

Issue:
 pertain to questions of law on the application of
Section 33 (A) of the NIRC.
They do not require the application of the Labor
G.R. No. 204142, November 19, 2014 Code or the interpretation of the MOA and/or
Honda Cars Phils., Inc. vs. Honda Cars company personnel policies. Furthermore, the
Technical Specialist and Supervisors Union company and the union cannot agree or
compromise on the taxability of the gas allowance.
Facts: Taxation is the State’s inherent power; its
Honda Cars Philippines, Inc., and Honda Cars imposition cannot be subject to the will of the
Technical Specialists and Supervisory Union, parties.
entered into a collective bargaining agreement.
The union members were receiving a
transportation allowance of 3,300.00 a month. the
company and the union entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) converting the
transportation allowance into a monthly gasoline
allowance. It was provided, that in the event the
amount of gasoline is not fully consumed, the
gasoline not used may be converted into cash,
subject to whatever tax may be applicable.
Since the cash conversion is paid in the monthly
payroll as an excess gas allowance, the company
considers the amount as part of the managers’ and
AVPs’ compensation that is subject to income tax
on compensation.
The union, on the other hand, argued that the
gasoline allowance for its members is a "negotiated
item" under their CBA on fringe benefits.
The disagreement between the company and
the union on the matter resulted in a grievance
which they referred to the CBA grievance
procedure for resolution. As it remained unsettled
there, they submitted the issue to a panel of
voluntary arbitrators as required by the CBA.
The Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators declared that
the cash conversion of the unused gasoline
allowance enjoyed by the members of the union is
a fringe benefit subject to the fringe benefit tax, not
to income tax.

Issue:
Whether or not the Voluntary Arbitrator has
jurisdiction to settle tax matters.

Ruling:
No. The Voluntary Arbitrator has no competence
to rule on the taxability of the gas allowance
and on the propriety of the withholding of tax.
These issues are clearly tax matters, and do not
involve labor disputes. To be exact, they involve tax
issues within a labor relations setting as they

G.R. No. 169709, November 17, 2010
Albert Teng vs. Alferdo S. Pahagac, et. al.
Facts:
Albert Teng Fish Trading is engaged in deep sea
fishing and, for this purpose, owns boats (basnig),
equipment, and other fishing paraphernalia. As
owner of the business, Teng claims that he
customarily enters into joint venture agreements
with master fishermen (maestros) who are skilled
and are experts in deep sea fishing; they take
charge of the management of each fishing venture,
including the hiring of the members of its
complement. He avers that the maestros hired the
respondent workers as checkers to determine the
volume of the fish caught in every fishing voyage.
The respondent workers alleged that Teng hired
them without any written employment contract.
They asserted that sometime in September 2002,
Teng expressed his doubts on the correct volume
of fish caught in every fishing voyage. In December
2002, Teng informed them that their services had
been terminated.
They thus filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
against Albert Teng Fish Trading before the NCMB.
The VA rendered a decision in Teng’s favor and
declared that no employer-employee relationship
existed between Teng and the respondent workers.
Respondent workers filed a motion for
reconsideration but the same was denied. The VA
reasoned out that Procedural Guidelines in the
Conduct of Voluntary Arbitration Proceedings does
not provide the remedy of a motion for
reconsideration to the party adversely affected by
the VAs order or decision.
Issue:
Whether or not the decision of the VA is subject
to motion for reconsideration.
Ruling:
Yes.
Article 262-A of the Labor Code does not
prohibit the filing of a motion for reconsideration.
Republic Act No. 671523 took effect, amending,
among others, Article 263 of the Labor Code which
was originally worded as: x x x Voluntary arbitration
awards or decisions shall be final, unappealable,
and executory.
As amended, Article 263 is now Article 262-A,
which states: x x x [T]he award or decision x x x
shall contain the facts and the law on which it is
based. It shall be final and executory after ten (10)
calendar days from receipt of the copy of the award
or decision by the parties.
Notably, the word "unappealable" was deleted.
The legislature intended a change in the law, and
the court should endeavor to give effect to such
intent.
Teng’s allegation that the VA’s decision had
become final and executory by the time the
respondent workers filed an appeal with the CA
thus fails. We consequently rule that the
respondent workers seasonably filed a motion for
reconsideration of the VA’s judgment, and the VA
erred in denying the motion because no motion for
reconsideration is allowed.
In the exercise of its power to promulgate
implementing rules and regulations, an
implementing agency, such as the Department of
Labor,34 is restricted from going beyond the terms
of the law it seeks to implement; it should neither
modify nor improve the law. The agency
formulating the rules and guidelines cannot exceed
the statutory authority granted to it by the
legislature.35
By allowing a 10-day period, the obvious intent
of Congress in amending Article 263 to Article 262-
A is to provide an opportunity for the party
adversely affected by the VA’s decision to seek
recourse via a motion for reconsideration.
By disallowing reconsideration of the VA’s
decision, DO 40-03 and the 2005 Procedural
Guidelines went directly against the legislative
intent behind Article 262-A of the Labor Code.
These rules deny the VA the chance to correct
himself and compel the courts of justice to
prematurely intervene with the action of an
administrative agency entrusted with the
adjudication of controversies coming under its
special knowledge, training and specific field of
expertise.
G.R. No. 168612, December 10, 2014
Philippine Electric Corp. vs. Court of Appeals

Facts:
Philippine Electric Corporation (PHILEC) is a
domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture
and repairs of high voltage transformers. Among its
rank-and-file employees were private respondents
Lipio and Ignacio, Sr., who are former members of
the PHILEC Workers’ Union (PWU). PWU is a
legitimate labor organization and the exclusive
bargaining representative of PHILEC’s rank-and-file
employees.
PHILEC and its rank-and-file employees were
governed by collective bargaining agreements
providing for the step increases in an employee’s
basic salary in case of promotion.
With the previous collective bargaining
agreements already expired, PHILEC selected
Lipio for promotion from Machinist to Foreman I.
Ignacio Sr. was likewise selected for training for the
position of Foreman I.