Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 19 views

    Supreme Court

    Uploaded by

    Yanhicoh CySa
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that a voluntary arbitrator did have jurisdiction over a labor dispute between a radio station employee and her employer. The Court of Appeals had previously ruled that the voluntary arbitrator lacked jurisdiction because the employee did not first submit to the grievance process in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. However, the Supreme Court found that both parties had agreed in writing to submit the issue to a voluntary arbitrator, so jurisdiction was established based on their agreement as allowed under the Labor Code. The Supreme Court therefore reinstated the voluntary arbitration award in favor of the employee.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Supreme Court

    Uploaded by

    Yanhicoh CySa
    19 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that a voluntary arbitrator did have jurisdiction over a labor dispute between a radio station employee and her employer. The Court of Appeals had previously ruled that the voluntary arbitrator lacked jurisdiction because the employee did not first submit to the grievance process in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. However, the Supreme Court found that both parties had agreed in writing to submit the issue to a voluntary arbitrator, so jurisdiction was established based on their agreement as allowed under the Labor Code. The Supreme Court therefore reinstated the voluntary arbitration award in favor of the employee.

    Original Title

    4

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that a voluntary arbitrator did have jurisdiction over a labor dispute between a radio station employee and her employer. The Court of Appeals had previously ruled that the voluntary arbitrator lacked jurisdiction because the employee did not first submit to the grievance process in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. However, the Supreme Court found that both parties had agreed in writing to submit the issue to a voluntary arbitrator, so jurisdiction was established based on their agreement as allowed under the Labor Code. The Supreme Court therefore reinstated the voluntary arbitration award in favor of the employee.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    19 views2 pages

    Supreme Court

    Uploaded by

    Yanhicoh CySa
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that a voluntary arbitrator did have jurisdiction over a labor dispute between a radio station employee and her employer. The Court of Appeals had previously ruled that the voluntary arbitrator lacked jurisdiction because the employee did not first submit to the grievance process in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. However, the Supreme Court found that both parties had agreed in writing to submit the issue to a voluntary arbitrator, so jurisdiction was established based on their agreement as allowed under the Labor Code. The Supreme Court therefore reinstated the voluntary arbitration award in favor of the employee.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Republic of the Philippines

    SUPREME COURT
    Manila
    THIRD DIVISION
    G.R. No. 138094
    May 29, 2003
    MARILOU GUANZON APALISOK, petitioner,
    vs.
    RADIO PHILIPPINES NETWORK RADIO STATION DYKC and STATION MANAGER GEORGE SUAZO,respondents.
    CARPIO MORALES, J.:
    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 Guanzon Apalisok (petitioner), then Production Chief of Radio Philippines Network (RPN) Station
    DYKC, received a Memorandum3 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.
    Complying, petitioner submitted on May 16, 1995 her Answer4 to the memorandum.
    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.
    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.
    By Submission Agreement5 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.
    In her position paper6 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.
    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
    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 88,817.00

    3. MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES ...........................

    P100,000.00

    4. SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVES (P14,600 divide by 30 days


    = P486.67 x 5 days = P2,433.35 x 19 years .......
    P 46,233.65
    5. ATTORNEY'S FEES (10%) ...........................
    All other claims are hereby denied.

    P 37,375.16

    SO ORDERED. (Emphasis supplied)


    Respondents' motion for reconsideration9 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 Resolution10 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.
    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.
    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:
    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 italics 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
    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.
    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.
    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.
    As the voluntary arbitrator had jurisdiction over the parties' controversy, discussion of the second issue is no longer necessary.
    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.
    SO ORDERED.

    You might also like