Vivero Vs CA: Title: GR No. 138938

Grounds for Judicial Review
Title: GR No. 138938

Vivero vs CA
Ponente: BELLOSILLO, J. Date: October 24, 2000
DOCTRINE:
Absent an express stipulation in the CBA, the phrase “all disputes” should be construed as limited to
the areas of conflict traditionally within the jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators, i.e., disputes relating
to contract-interpretation, contract-implementation, or interpretation or enforcement of company
personnel policies—illegal termination disputes in the absence of an express CBA provision, do not fall
within any of these categories, and are within the exclusive original jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters by
express provision of law.
FACTS:
Petitioner Vivero, a licensed seaman, is a member of the Associated Marine Officers and Seamen’s
Union of the Philippines (AMOSUP).
On grounds of very poor performance and conduct, refusal to perform his job, refusal to report to the
Captain or the vessel’s Engineers or cooperate with other ship officers about the problem in cleaning
the cargo holds or of the shipping pump and his dismal relations with the Captain of the vessel,
complainant was repatriated on 15 July 1994.
On 01 August 1994, complainant filed a complaint for illegal dismissal at Associated Marine Officers’
and Seaman’s Union of the Philippines (AMOSUP) of which complainant was a member. Pursuant to
Article XII of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, grievance proceedings were conducted; however,
parties failed to reach and settle the dispute amicably, thus, on 28 November 1994, complainant filed a
complaint with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).
While the case was pending before the POEA, private respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss on the
ground that the POEA had no jurisdiction over the case considering petitioner Vivero’s failure to refer
it to a Voluntary Arbitration Committee in accordance with the CBA between the parties. Upon the
enactment of RA 8042, the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, the case was
transferred to the Adjudication Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission.
The Labor Arbiter, on the basis of the pleadings and documents available on record, rendered a
decision dismissing the Complaint for want of jurisdiction. NLRC set aside the decision of the Labor
Arbiter on the ground that the record was clear that petitioner had exhausted his remedy by submitting
his case to the Grievance Committee of AMOSUP. The NLRC then remanded the case to the Labor
Arbiter for further proceedings. Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by
the NLRC.
Private respondents raised the case to the Court of Appeals contending that the provision in the CBA
requiring a dispute which remained unresolved by the Grievance Committee to be referred to a
Voluntary Arbitration Committee, was mandatory in character in view of the CBA between the parties.
The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of private respondents.
Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE/S:
whether the NLRC is deprived of jurisdiction over illegal dismissal cases whenever a CBA provides for
grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration proceedings.
RULING:
The argument is untenable. The case is primarily a termination dispute. It is clear from the
claim/assistance request form submitted by petitioner to AMOSUP that he was challenging the legality
of his dismissal for lack of cause and lack of due process. The issue of whether there was proper
interpretation and implementation of the CBA provisions comes into play only because the grievance
procedure provided for in the CBA was not observed after he sought his Union’s assistance in
contesting his termination. Thus, the question to be resolved necessarily springs from the primary issue
of whether there was a valid termination; without this, then there would be no reason to invoke the need
to interpret and implement the CBA provisions properly.
In San Miguel Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission this Court held that the phrase “all other
labor disputes” may include termination disputes provided that the agreement between the Union and
the Company states “in unequivocal language that [the parties] conform to the submission of
termination disputes and unfair labor practices to voluntary arbitration.” Ergo, it is not sufficient to
merely say that parties to the CBA agree on the principle that “all disputes” should first be submitted to
a Voluntary Arbitrator. There is a need for an express stipulation in the CBA that illegal termination
disputes should be resolved by a Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, since the same
fall within a special class of disputes that are generally within the exclusive original jurisdiction of
Labor Arbiters by express provision of law. Absent such express stipulation, the phrase “all disputes”
should be construed as limited to the areas of conflict traditionally within the jurisdiction of Voluntary
Arbitrators, i.e., disputes relating to contract-interpretation, contract-implementation, or interpretation
or enforcement of company personnel policies. Illegal termination disputes—not falling within any of
these categories—should then be considered as a special area of interest governed by a specific
provision of law.
MISC DETAILS:
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals is SET ASIDE and the case is remanded to the
Labor Arbiter to dispose of the case with dispatch until terminated considering the undue delay already
incurred.

Vivero Vs CA: Title: GR No. 138938

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vivero Vs CA: Title: GR No. 138938

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vivero Vs CA: Title: GR No. 138938

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Grounds for Judicial Review

Title: GR No. 138938

You might also like