THIRD DIVISION
MARILOU GUANZON
APALISOK,
Petitioner,
G.
R.
No. 138094
May 29, 2003
-versus-
RADIO PHILIPPINES
NETWORK RADIO
STATION DYKCAND STATION MANAGER
GEORGE SUAZO,
Respondents.
D E C I S I
O N
CARPIO-MORALES,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Before this court is a
Petition for Review on
Certiorari
under Rule 45 assailing the Court of
Appeals' decision[1]
of October 30, 1998 and resolution[2]
of February 26, 1999.
On May 15, 1995, Marilou
Gaunzon Apalisok (petitioner), then Production Chief of Radio
Philippines
Network (RPN) Station DYKC, received a Memorandum[3]
from Branches Operations Manager Gilito Datoc asking her to submit a
written
explanation why no disciplinary action should be taken against her for
performance of acts hostile to RPN, and arrogant, disrespectful and
defiant
behavior towards her superior Station Manager George Suazo.cralaw:red
Complying, petitioner
submitted on May 16, 1995 her Answer[4]
to the memorandum.cralaw:red
On May 31, 1995, petitioner
received another memorandum from the Administrative Manager of RPN,
informing
her of the termination of her services effective the close of regular
office
hours of June 15, 1995.chanrobles virtual law library
By letter of June 5,
1995, petitioner informed RPN, by letter of June 5, 1995, of her
decision
to waive her right to resolve her case through the grievance machinery
of RPN as provided for in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and
to lodge her case before the proper government forum. She
thereafter
filed a complaint against RPN DYKC and Suazo (respondents) for illegal
dismissal before the National labor Relations Commission, Regional
Arbitration
Branch of Region 7 which referred it to the National Conciliation and
Mediation
Board.cralaw:red
By Submission Agreement[5]
dated June 20, 1995 signed by their respective counsels, petitioner and
respondents agreed to submit for voluntary arbitration the issue of
whether
petitioner’s dismissal was valid and to abide by the decision of the
voluntary
arbitrator.cralaw:red
In her position paper[6]
submitted before the voluntary arbitrator, petitioner prayed that her
dismissal
be declared invalid and that she be awarded separation pay, backwages
and
other benefits granted to her by the Labor Code since reinstatement is
no longer feasible due to strained relations. She also prayed
that
she be awarded P2,000,000.00 for moral damages and P500,000.00 for
exemplary
damages.cralaw:red
Respondents on the other
hand prayed for the dismissal of the complaint, arguing that the
voluntary
arbitrator had no jurisdiction over the case and, assuming that he had,
the complaint is dismissible for lack of merit as petitioner was not
illegally
dismissed.[7]chanrobles virtual law library
On October 18, 1995,
the voluntary arbitrator rendered an Award[8]
in favor of petitioner, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE,
above premises considered, this Voluntary Arbitrator rules that the
dismissal
of complainant was invalid.
However,
considering
the impracticality of reinstatement because of proven strained relation
between the parties, respondents, instead shall pay complainant the
amount
of FOUR HUNDRED ELEVEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED TWENTY SIX PESOS &
SEVENTY-SIX
CENTAVOS (P411,126.76) itemized as follows:
In summary, the
total
award is hereunder itemized:
1. SEPARATION PAY
(P14,600.00
divide by 30 days
multiplied
by
15 days per year of
service x 19
years)
P138,700.95
2. BACKWAGES
(P14,600
X 6
months) .
P 88,817.00chanrobles virtual law library
3. MORAL AND
EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES
P100,000.00
4. SERVICE
INCENTIVE
LEAVES
(P14,600 divide by
30 days =chanrobles virtual law library
P486.67 x 5 days =
P2,433.35 x
19 years
P 46,233.65chanrobles virtual law library
5. ATTORNEY’S FEES
(10%)
P 37,375.16
All other claims
are
hereby denied.
SO ORDERED.
(Emphasis
supplied.)
Respondents’ motion for
reconsideration[9]
of the Award having been denied by the voluntary arbitrator by Order of
November 21, 1995, they filed a petition for certiorari before this
Court,
docketed as G. R. No. 122841.
By resolution[10]
of December 13, 1995, the Third Division of this Court referred G. R.
No.
122841 to the Court of Appeals, following the case of Luzon Development
Bank v. Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees, et al.[11]
holding that decisions or awards of a voluntary arbitrator or panel of
arbitrators in labor cases are reviewable by the Court of Appeals.cralaw:red
The Court of Appeals,
finding that the option of petitioner not to subject the dispute to the
grievance machinery provided for in the CBA was tantamount to
relinquishing
her right to avail of the aid of a voluntary arbitrator in settling the
dispute which "likewise converted an unresolved grievance into a
resolved
one," held that the voluntary arbitrator did not have jurisdiction over
petitioner’s complaint and accordingly nullified and set aside, by
decision
of October 30, 1998, the voluntary arbitration award.chanrobles virtual law library
Petitioner’s Motion
for Reconsideration[12]
of the Court of Appeals Decision having been denied by Resolution[13]
of February 26, 1999, the present petition was filed which raises the
following
issues:
1.
Whether
or not the Voluntary Arbitrator had jurisdiction over petitioner’s
complaint,
and
2. Whether or not
respondents
are guilty of estoppel.[14]
Petitioner, citing
Article
262 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended which reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Article
262.
JURISDICTION OVER OTHER LABOR DISPUTES. The Voluntary Arbitrator
or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, upon agreement of the parties, shall
hear and decide all other labor disputes including unfair labor
practices
and bargaining deadlocks. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
contends that her
option
not to subject the dispute to the grievance machinery of RPN did not
amount
to her relinquishing of her right to avail of voluntary arbitration as
a mode of settling it for she and respondents in fact agreed to have
the
dispute settled by a voluntary arbitrator when they freely executed the
above-said Submission Agreement. She thus concludes that the
voluntary
arbitrator has jurisdiction over the controversy.[15]chanrobles virtual law library
Petitioner contends
in any event that even assuming that the voluntary arbitrator had no
jurisdiction
over the case, it would not be in keeping with settled jurisprudence to
allow a losing party to question the authority of the voluntary
arbitrator
after it had freely submitted itself to its authority.[16]
The petition is impressed
with merit.cralaw:red
The above-quoted Article
262 of the Labor Code provides that upon agreement of the parties, the
voluntary arbitrator can hear and decide all other labor disputes.cralaw:red
Contrary to the finding
of the Court of Appeals, voluntary arbitration as a mode of settling
the
dispute was not forced upon respondents. Both parties indeed
agreed
to submit the issue of validity of the dismissal of petitioner to the
jurisdiction
of the voluntary arbitrator by the Submission Agreement duly signed by
their respective counsels.chanrobles virtual law library
As the voluntary arbitrator
had jurisdiction over the parties’ controversy, discussion of the
second
issue is no longer necessary.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the Court
of Appeals Decision of October 30, 1998 is hereby SET ASIDE and the
voluntary
arbitration Award of October 18, 1995 is hereby REINSTATED.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, Acting C.J., (Chairman),
and Panganiban, JJ., concur.
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
and Corona, JJ., on leave.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo at 169-180.
[2]
Id. at 190.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
Id. at 73.chanrobles virtual law library
[4]
Id. at 74-77.
[5]
Id. at 24.chanrobles virtual law library
[6]
Id. at 103-117.
[7]
Id. at 81-98.
[8]
Id. at 25-31.
[9]
Id. at 151-152.
[10]
Id. at 153.chanrobles virtual law library
[11]
G. R. No. 120319, October 6, 1995.
[12]
Id. at 181-187.chanrobles virtual law library
[13]
Id. at 190.chanrobles virtual law library
[14]
Id. at 13.
[15]
Id. at 14.
[16]
Id. at 15. | 
