VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION / GRIEVANCE MACHINERY

Article 262 of the same Code provides the exception: 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. The parties in this case clearly agreed to resort to voluntary arbitration. Thus, the Labor Arbiter should have immediately disposed of the complaint and referred the same to the voluntary arbitrator when the university moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. (THE UNIVERSITY OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION and MO. MARIA ASSUMPTA DAVID, RVM v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and TEODORA AXALAN, G.R. No. 181146, 26 January 2011)

Articles 217(c) and 261 of the Labor Code are very specific in stating that voluntary arbitrators have jurisdiction over cases arising from the interpretation or implementation of collective bargaining agreements. Stated differently, the instant case involves a situation where the special statute (R.A. 8042) refers to a subject in general, which the general statute (Labor Code) treats in particular. From the foregoing, it is clear that the parties, in the first place, really intended to bring to conciliation or voluntary arbitration any dispute or conflict in the interpretation or application of the provisions of their CBA. It is settled that when the parties have validly agreed on a procedure for resolving grievances and to submit a dispute to voluntary arbitration then that procedure should be strictly observed. (ESTATE OF NELSON R. DULAY, represented by his wife MERRIDY JANE P. DULAY, v. ABOITIZ JEBSEN MARITIME, INC. and GENERAL CHARTERERS, INC., G.R. No. 172642 , 13 June 2012)

In Sime Darby Pilipinas, Inc. v. Deputy Administrator Magsalin, we ruled that the voluntary arbitrator had plenary jurisdiction and authority to interpret the agreement to arbitrate and to determine the scope of his own authority – subject only, in a proper case, to the certiorari jurisdiction of this Court. A more recent case is Ludo&Luym Corporation v. Saornido where we recognized that voluntary arbitrators are generally expected to decide only those questions expressly delineated by the submission agreement; that, nevertheless, they can assume that they have the necessary power to make a final settlement on the related issues, since arbitration is the final resort for the adjudication of disputes. (MANILA PAVILION HOTEL, owned and operated by ACESITE (PHILS.) Hotel Corporation vs. HENRY DELADA, G.R. No. 189947, January 25, 2012)

It bears stressing at this point that we are upholding the jurisdiction of the voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators over the present dispute, not only because of the clear language of the parties’ CBA on the matter; more importantly, we so uphold the voluntary arbitrator’s jurisdiction, in recognition of the State’s express preference for voluntary modes of dispute settlement, such as conciliation and voluntary arbitration as expressed in the Constitution, the law and the rules. It is settled that when the parties have validly agreed on a procedure for resolving grievances and to submit a dispute to voluntary arbitration then that procedure should be strictly observed. (ACE NAVIGATION CO., INC., et al. v. TEODORICO FERNANDEZ, assisted by GLENITA FERNANDEZ, G.R. No. 197309, 10 October 2012)

Generally, the arbitrator is expected to decide only those questions expressly delineated by the submission agreement. Nevertheless, the arbitrator can assume that he has the necessary power to make a final settlement since arbitration is the final resort for the adjudication of disputes. (GOYA, INC. vs. GOYA, INC. EMPLOYEES UNION-FFW, G.R. No. 170054, 21 January 2013)

It is settled that when parties have validly agreed on a procedure for resolving grievances and to submit a dispute to voluntary arbitration then that procedure should be strictly observed. The premature invocation of the court’s judicial intervention is fatal to one’s cause of action. (CARLOS L. OCTAVIO v. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, G.R. No. 175492, 27 February 2013)

Neil Christian

I want to share to you my knowledge about law, our travels with my family, success principles as well as healthy insights. I hope you will enjoy and learn from my blog.