UNION OF NESTLE WORKERS CAGAYAN DE ORO FACTORY (UNWCF for brevity),

vs. NESTLE PHILPPINES, INC.

G. R. No. 148303 - October 17, 2002

FACTS:

On August 1, 1999, Nestle Philippines, Inc. (Nestle) adopted the "Drug Abuse Policy"
wherein the management shall conduct simultaneous drug tests on all employees from
different factories and plants. However, there was resistance to the policy in the Nestle
Cagayan de Oro factory. Petitioners wrote Nestle challenging the implementation of the
policy. Nestle claimed that the policy is in keeping with the government's thrust to eradicate
the proliferation of drug abuse, explaining that the company has the right: (a) to ensure
that its employees are of sound physical and mental health and (b) to terminate the
services of an employee who refuses to undergo the drug test.

Petitioners filed a complaint for injunction with prayer for the issuance of a TRO against
Nestle, Rudy P. Trillanes, Factory Manager of the Cagayan de Oro City Branch, and Francis
L. Lacson, Cagayan de Oro City Human Resources Manager.

The RTC issued a TRO enjoining respondents from proceeding with the drug test. Nestle
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the RTC has no jurisdiction over
the case as it involves a labor dispute or enforcement of a company personnel policy
cognizable by the Voluntary Arbitrator. The RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of
jurisdiction.

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied, prompting them to file with
this Court a petition for certiorari.

The Court referred the petition to the Court of Appeals for consideration and adjudication on
the merits. The Appellate Court dismissed the petition.

Petitioners sought reconsideration but to no avail. Hence this petition for review on
certiorari.

ISSUES
1.) Whether or not the “Drug Abuse Policy” is valid.
2.) Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the case.

RULING:

1.) Yes.

Company personnel policies are guiding principles stated in broad, long-range terms that
express the philosophy or beliefs of an organization’s top authority regarding personnel matters.
 Respondent Nestlé’s Drug Abuse Policy states that “illegal drugs and use of regulated drugs beyond
the medically prescribed limits are prohibited in the workplace. Illegal drug use puts at risk the
integrity of Nestlé operations and the safety of our products. It is detrimental to the health, safety
and work-performance of employees and is harmful to the welfare of families and the surrounding
community.” This pronouncement is a guiding principle adopted by Nestlé to safeguard its
employees’ welfare and ensure their efficiency and wellbeing. To our minds, this is a company
personnel policy.

In San Miguel Corp. vs. NLRC, this Court held: “Company personnel policies are guiding principles
stated in broad, long-range terms that express the philosophy or beliefs of an organization’s top
authority regarding personnel matters. They deal with matter affecting efficiency and well-being of
employees and include, among others, the procedure in the administration of wages, benefits,
promotions, transfer and other personnel movements which are usually not spelled out in the
collective agreement.”

2.) No.

It is the Voluntary Arbitrators or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, not the Regional Trial Court,
which exercises jurisdiction over a Drug Abuse Policy which is part of a company personnel policy.
Considering that the Drug Abuse Policy is a company personnel policy, it is the Voluntary Arbitrators or
Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, not the RTC, which exercises jurisdiction over this case.

Article 261 of the Labor Code, as amended, pertinently provides: Art. 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 x x x.”