EN BANC
LUDO & LUYM
CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
140960
January 20, 2003 -versus-
FERDINAND
SAORNIDO
AS VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR
AND LUDO EMPLOYEES
UNION (LEU)REPRESENTING
214
OF ITS OFFICERS AND MEMBERS,
Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
QUISUMBING, J.:
This petition for
review on certiorari seeks to annul and set aside the decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals promulgated on July 6, 1999 and its Order
denying
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in CA-G.R. SP No. 44341.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The relevant facts as
substantially recited by the Court of Appeals in its decision are as
follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner LUDO &
LUYM CORPORATION (LUDO for brevity) is a domestic corporation engaged
in
the manufacture of coconut oil, corn starch, glucose and related
products.
It operates a manufacturing plant located at Tupas Street, Cebu City
and
a wharf where raw materials and finished products are shipped out.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the course of its
business operations, LUDO engaged the arrastre services of Cresencio Lu
Arrastre Services (CLAS) for the loading and unloading of its finished
products at the wharf. Accordingly, several arrastre workers were
deployed
by CLAS to perform the services needed by LUDO.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
These arrastre workers
were subsequently hired, on different dates, as regular rank-and-file
employees
of LUDO every time the latter needed additional manpower services. Said
employees thereafter joined respondent union, the LUDO Employees Union
(LEU), which acted as the exclusive bargaining agent of the
rank-and-file
employees.cralaw:red
On April 13, 1992, respondent
union entered into a collective bargaining agreement with LUDO which
provides
certain benefits to the employees, the amount of which vary according
to
the length of service rendered by the availing employee.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thereafter, the union
requested LUDO to include in its members’ period of service the time
during
which they rendered arrastre services to LUDO through the CLAS so that
they could get higher benefits. LUDO failed to act on the request.
Thus,
the matter was submitted for voluntary arbitration. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The parties accordingly
executed a submission agreement raising the sole issue of the date of
regularization
of the workers for resolution by the Voluntary Arbitrator.cralaw:red
In its decision dated
April 18, 1997, the Voluntary Arbitrator ruled that: (1) the respondent
employees were engaged in activities necessary and desirable to the
business
of petitioner, and (2) CLAS is a labor-only contractor of petitioner.[2]
It disposed of the case thus: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, in view of
the foregoing, this Voluntary Arbitrator finds the claims of the
complainants
meritorious and so hold that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
a. the
214 complainants, as listed in the Annex A, shall be considered regular
employees of the respondents six (6) months from the first day of
service
at CLAS;
b. the
said complainants, being entitled to the CBA benefits during the
regular
employment, are awarded a) sick leave, b) vacation leave & c)
annual
wage and salary increases during such period in the amount of FIVE
MILLION
SEVEN HUNDRED SEVEN THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED SIXTY ONE PESOS AND SIXTY ONE
CENTAVOS (P5,707,261.61) as computed in 'Annex A'; chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
c. the
respondents shall pay attorney’s fees of ten (10) percent of the total
award; chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
d. an interest
of twelve (12) percent per annum or one (1) percent per month shall be
imposed to the award from the date of promulgation until fully paid if
only to speed up the payment of these long over due CBA benefits
deprived
of the complaining workers.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Accordingly, all separation
and/or retirement benefits shall be construed from the date of
regularization
aforementioned subject only to the appropriate government laws and
other
social legislation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In due time, LUDO filed
a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. On appeal, the Court of
Appeals affirmed in toto the decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator, thus:
WHEREFORE, finding no
reversible error committed by respondent voluntary arbitrator, the
instant
petition is hereby DISMISSED. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Hence this petition.
Before us, petitioner raises the following issues:
I
WHETHER OR NOT BENEFITS
CONSISTING OF SALARY INCREASES, VACATION LEAVE AND SICK LEAVE BENEFITS
FOR THE YEARS 1977 TO 1987 ARE ALREADY BARRED BY PRESCRIPTION WHEN
PRIVATE
RESPONDENTS FILED THEIR CASE IN JANUARY 1995;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
II
WHETHER OR NOT A VOLUNTARY
ARBITRATOR CAN AWARD BENEFITS NOT CLAIMED IN THE SUBMISSION AGREEMENT.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner contends
that the appellate court gravely erred when it upheld the award of
benefits
which were beyond the terms of submission agreement. Petitioner asserts
that the arbitrator must confine its adjudication to those issues
submitted
by the parties for arbitration, which in this case is the sole issue of
the date of regularization of the workers. Hence, the award of benefits
by the arbitrator was done in excess of jurisdiction.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondents, for their
part, aver that the three-year prescriptive period is reckoned only
from
the time the obligor declares his refusal to comply with his obligation
in clear and unequivocal terms. In this case, respondents maintain that
LUDO merely promised to review the company records in response to
respondents’
demand for adjustment in the date of their regularization without
making
a categorical statement of refusal.[7]
On the matter of the benefits, respondents argue that the arbitrator is
empowered to award the assailed benefits because notwithstanding the
sole
issue of the date of regularization, standard companion issues on
reliefs
and remedies are deemed incorporated. Otherwise, the whole arbitration
process would be rendered purely academic and the law creating it
inutile.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The jurisdiction of
Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators and Labor
Arbiters
is clearly defined and specifically delineated in the Labor Code. The
pertinent
provisions of the Labor Code, read: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Art. 217. Jurisdiction
of Labor Arbiters and the Commission. -- (a) Except as otherwise
provided
under this Code the Labor Arbiters shall have original and exclusive
jurisdiction
to hear and decide, within thirty (30) calendar days after the
submission
of the case by the parties for decision without extension, even in the
absence of stenographic notes, the following cases involving all
workers,
whether agricultural or non-agricultural:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1. Unfair
labor practice cases:
2.
Termination
disputes;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. If
accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that workers
may
file involving wage, rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and
conditions
of employment;
4. Claims
for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from
the
employer-employee relations;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
xxx
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 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. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In construing the above
provisions, we held in San Jose vs. NLRC,[9]
that the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter and the Voluntary Arbitrator
or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators over the cases enumerated in the
Labor
Code, Articles 217, 261 and 262, can possibly include money claims in
one
form or another.[10]
Comparatively, in Reformist Union of R.B. Liner, Inc. vs. NLRC,[11]
compulsory arbitration has been defined both as "the process of
settlement
of labor disputes by a government agency which has the authority to
investigate
and to make an award which is binding on all the parties, and as a mode
of arbitration where the parties are compelled to accept the resolution
of their dispute through arbitration by a third party."[12]
While a voluntary arbitrator is not part of the governmental unit or
labor
department’s personnel, said arbitrator renders arbitration services
provided
for under labor laws.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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.[13]
The succinct reasoning enunciated by the CA in support of its holding,
that the Voluntary Arbitrator in a labor controversy has jurisdiction
to
render the questioned arbitral awards, deserves our concurrence, thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In general, the arbitrator
is expected to decide those questions expressly stated and limited in
the
submission agreement. However, since arbitration is the final resort
for
the adjudication of disputes, the arbitrator can assume that he has the
power to make a final settlement. Thus, assuming that the submission
empowers
the arbitrator to decide whether an employee was discharged for just
cause,
the arbitrator in this instance can reasonable assume that his powers
extended
beyond giving a yes-or-no answer and included the power to reinstate
him
with or without back pay. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In one case, the Supreme
Court stressed that xxx 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. The Arbitrator, as already indicated,
viewed
his authority as embracing not merely the determination of the abstract
question of whether or not a performance bonus was to be granted but
also,
in the affirmative case, the amount thereof.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
By the same token, the
issue of regularization should be viewed as two-tiered issue. While the
submission agreement mentioned only the determination of the date or
regularization,
law and jurisprudence give the voluntary arbitrator enough leeway of
authority
as well as adequate prerogative to accomplish the reason for which the
law on voluntary arbitration was created - speedy labor justice. It
bears
stressing that the underlying reason why this case arose is to settle,
once and for all, the ultimate question of whether respondent employees
are entitled to higher benefits. To require them to file another action
for payment of such benefits would certainly undermine labor
proceedings
and contravene the constitutional mandate providing full protection to
labor.[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As regards petitioner’s
contention that the money claim in this case is barred by prescription,
we hold that this contention is without merit. So is petitioner’s
stance
that the benefits claimed by the respondents, i.e., sick leave,
vacation
leave and 13th-month pay, had already prescribed, considering the
three-year
period for the institution of monetary claims.[15]
Such determination is a question of fact which must be ascertained
based
on the evidence, both oral and documentary, presented by the parties
before
the Voluntary Arbitrator. In this case, the Voluntary Arbitrator found
that prescription has not as yet set in to bar the respondents’ claims
for the monetary benefits awarded to them. Basic is the rule that
findings
of fact of administrative and quasi-judicial bodies, which have
acquired
expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters,
are
generally accorded not only great respect but even finality.[16]
Here, the Voluntary Arbitrator received the evidence of the parties
first-hand.
No compelling reason has been shown for us to diverge from the findings
of the Voluntary Arbitrator, especially since the appellate court
affirmed
his findings, that it took some time for respondent employees to
ventilate
their claims because of the repeated assurances made by the petitioner
that it would review the company records and determine therefrom the
validity
of
the claims, without expressing a categorical denial of their claims. As
elucidated by the Voluntary Arbitrator: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The respondents had
raised prescription as defense. The controlling law, as ruled by the
High
Court, is: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"The cause of action
accrues until the party obligated refuses xxx to comply with his duty.
Being warded off by promises, the workers not having decided to assert
their rights, their causes of action had not accrued" (Citation
omitted.)
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Since the parties had
continued their negotiations even after the matter was raised before
the
Grievance Procedure and the voluntary arbitration, the respondents had
not refused to comply with their duty. They just wanted the
complainants
to present some proofs. The complainant’s cause of action had not
therefore
accrued yet. Besides, in the earlier voluntary arbitration case
aforementioned
involving exactly the same issue and employees similarly situated as
the
complainants’, the same defense was raised and dismissed by Honorable
Thelma
Jordan, Voluntary Arbitrator. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In fact, the respondents’
promised to correct their length of service and grant them the back CBA
benefits if the complainants can prove they are entitled rendered the
former
in estoppel, barring them from raising the defense of laches or
prescription.
To hold otherwise amounts to rewarding the respondents for their
duplicitous
representation and abet them in a dishonest scheme against their
workers.[17]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Indeed, as the Court
of Appeals concluded, under the equitable principle of estoppel, it
will
be the height of injustice if we will brush aside the employees’ claims
on a mere technicality, especially when it is petitioner’s own action
that
prevented them from interposing the claims within the prescribed
period.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the petition
is denied. The appealed decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
No. 44341 and the resolution denying petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration,
are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Bellosillo, J., (Chairman),
Mendoza, Austria-Martinez and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 29-34. Penned by Associate Justice Angelina Sandoval
Gutierrez,
former Associate Justice of the CA.
[2]
Id. at 60-61.
[3]
Id. at 63.
[4]
Id. at 33.
[5]
Id. at 10-11.
[6]
Id. at 16.
[7]
Id. at 97-98.
[8]
Id. at 99-101.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
294 SCRA 336 (1998).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Supra note 9 at 348.
[11]
266 SCRA 713 (1997).
[12]
Supra note 11, at 723.
[13]
Rollo, pp. 31-32 citing C.A. Azucena, The Labor Code, With Comments and
Cases, 1993 Ed., p. 283 and Sime Darby Pilipinas, Inc. vs. Magsalin,
G.R.
No. 90426, 180 SCRA 177, 183 (1989).
[14]
Ibid.
[15]
Labor Code, ART. 291. Money claims. - All money claims arising from
employer-employee
relation accruing during the effectivity of this Code shall be filed
within
three (3) years from the time that cause of action accrues; otherwise
they
shall be forever barred.
xxxchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Conti vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 119253, 271 SCRA 114, 122 (1997).
[17]
Rollo, pp. 61-62.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |