ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 142923. June 14, 2000]

ITOGON-SUYOC MINES, INC. vs. HON. EDUARDO D. BADECAO, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 14 2000.

G.R. No. 142923 (Itogon-Suyoc Mines, Inc. vs. Hon Eduardo D Badecao, in his capacity as Voluntary Arbitrator and Samuel Maggan.)

Petitioner assails the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator, thus, declaring that when the parties agreed to submit the question of the legality of private respondent's dismissal to the Voluntary Arbitrator, petitioner was divested of the right to question the Voluntary Arbitrator's jurisdiction.

On August 4, 1989, private respondent, together with another employee, was charged with highgrading under Procedure Step 1 of the Plant Level Grievance Machinery in accordance with the existing CBA. The recommendation was that both respondents be terminated from the service.

Step 2 of the grievance procedure was pursued before the Mine Division Manager who affirmed the recommendation for dismissal.

Private respondent thereafter filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter of the Regional Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in Baguio City, Cordillera Administrative Region. The labor arbiter, however, dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and directed Maggan and the other complainant to follow termination procedure as provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). NLRC, Manila affirmed the decision of dismissal of the complaint. Thus, the dispute proceeded to Step 3 for Voluntary Arbitration.

On June 4, 1993, the Voluntary Arbitrator decided thusly:

WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, JUDGMENT IS HEREBY RENDERED IN FAVOR OF COMPLAINANT, as follows:

1. Declaring that the herein dispute is well within the jurisdiction of his Voluntary Arbitration;

2. Declaring that the separation of the complainant from his employment was unjust and illegal, as no violation of the rules and regulations was incurred by the complainant;

3. Ordering the respondent mining firm to pay to complainant full backwages and the monetary equivalent of any such fringe benefits under the CBA which he could have been entitled to had he not been terminated computed from the time of complainant's termination up to his actual reinstatement to work.

SO ORDERED.

Subsequent recourse to the Court of Appeals proved unavailing.

Thus, the instant petition which must likewise fail.

The Voluntary Arbitrator's action is in accordance with the guidelines under Policy Instruction No. 56 of the Secretary of Labor which provides:

In line with the policy of the Labor Code of the Philippines to promote and emphasize the primacy of free collective bargaining and negotiations, including voluntary modes of settling labor and industrial disputes, the following guidelines, are hereby promulgated:

1. Termination cases arising in or resulting from the interpretation and implementation of Collective Bargaining Agreement and interpretation and enforcement of Company Personnel Policies which were initially processed at the various steps of the plant level grievance procedures under the Parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement, x x x FALL WITHIN THE ORIGINAL AND EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR OR A PANEL OF ARBITRATORS, pursuant to Article 217(c) and Article 261 of the Labor Code.

2. Said cases, if filed before Labor Arbiter, shall be dismissed by the Labor Arbiter for lack of jurisdiction and referred to the concerned NCMD Regional Branch for appropriate action towards an expeditious selection by the parties of Voluntary Arbitrator or a panel of Arbitrators based on the procedures agreed upon in the CBA.

The fact that when private respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, the NLRC ordered the remand of the records of said dispute to the Voluntary Arbitrator further confirms the latter's authority to decide the subject dispute.

Moreover, the parties themselves agreed to submit the dispute to the Voluntary Arbitrator. It is not fair for a petitioner who had voluntarily invoked the jurisdiction of a tribunal in a particular matter to secure an affirmative relief therefrom to afterwards repudiate and deny the very same jurisdiction to escape penalty (Zamboanga City Water District vs. Buat, 232 SCRA 587 [1994]).

WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE