View full case

SECOND DIVISION CELESTINO VIVIERO v. CA

FACTS:

Celestino Vivero, a licensed seaman and a member of AMOSUP, was hired as Chief Officer of the vessel M.V. Sunny Prince. He was later repatriated due to poor performance, refusal to perform his job, refusal to report to superiors, and poor relations with the vessel's captain. Vivero filed a complaint for illegal dismissal at AMOSUP and grievance proceedings were conducted but failed to settle the dispute. Vivero then filed a complaint with POEA, which was transferred to the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter initially dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, but the NLRC set aside the decision, stating that Vivero had exhausted his remedy by submitting his case to the Grievance Committee.

Vivero filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against private respondents, alleging that he was unjustly dismissed due to false allegations made by Captain Andersen. The private respondents argued that the dispute should be referred to a Voluntary Arbitration Committee as provided in the CBA between the parties. Vivero claimed that the referral was voluntary and that the case should fall within the jurisdiction of the NLRC and its Labor Arbiter.

The NLRC initially ruled that the case should be referred to POEA for settlement but later remanded it to the Labor Arbiter for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of private respondents, holding that the provision in the CBA requiring the submission of disputes to the Voluntary Arbitration Committee was mandatory. Vivero filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court, alleging that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion. Private respondents argued that the case involved the proper interpretation and implementation of the Grievance Procedure in the CBA and should be within the jurisdiction of the Voluntary Arbitration Committee.

In another case involving private respondents and Capt. Andersen, private respondents alleged that Capt. Andersen caused trouble by inflicting physical injury and making false allegations against them. They claimed that there was no proper procedure for addressing grievances and that there was no proper notice of dismissal. Private respondents argued that there was a notice of dismissal issued but there was no grievance procedure observed. They believed that petitioner's complaint fell under the jurisdiction of the grievance machinery and subsequently the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the NLRC is deprived of jurisdiction over illegal dismissal cases whenever a CBA provides for grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration proceedings.

  2. Whether the dismissal of an employee constitutes a "grievance between the parties" under the provisions of the CBA, thereby rendering the NLRC without jurisdiction to decide the case.

  3. Whether the termination dispute between the petitioner and respondents should be resolved through voluntary arbitration or before a labor arbiter.

  4. Whether the CBA agreement between the parties provides for voluntary arbitration for termination disputes.

  5. Whether the failure to observe the grievance procedure agreed upon in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) warrants the dismissal of the case.

RULING:

  1. The NLRC is not deprived of jurisdiction over illegal dismissal cases even if a CBA provides for grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration proceedings. The case falls within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the NLRC and its Labor Arbiter, in accordance with Article 217 of the Labor Code.

  2. The dismissal of an employee does not constitute a "grievance between the parties" under the provisions of the CBA. Therefore, the jurisdiction does not exclusively belong to the Voluntary Arbitrator and the NLRC can still decide the case.

  3. The termination dispute should be resolved before a labor arbiter. The Court held that the case primarily involves a termination dispute, as the petitioner challenges the legality of his dismissal. The issue of proper interpretation and implementation of the CBA provisions only arises because the grievance procedure provided in the CBA was not observed after the petitioner sought the assistance of his union. The Court ruled that termination disputes fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of labor arbiters by express provision of law unless there is an express stipulation in the CBA that such disputes should be resolved through voluntary arbitration.

  4. The CBA agreement does not provide for mandatory voluntary arbitration for termination disputes. While the parties agreed that termination disputes can be subject to voluntary arbitration, the submission to voluntary arbitration remains discretionary upon the parties. The Court emphasized that there is a need for an express stipulation in the CBA that termination disputes should be resolved through voluntary arbitration. In this case, the use of the word "may" in the relevant CBA provisions showed the intention of the parties to reserve the right to submit termination disputes to the jurisdiction of a labor arbiter.

  5. The court held that the failure to comply with the agreed procedure for resolving grievances cannot be excused. The petitioner's lack of familiarity with the "fine prints" of the CBA does not absolve him from his responsibility to be well-informed about the provisions of the CBA through his Union. The court also emphasized that any violation of the rights and conditions of union membership is a ground for the cancellation of union registration or the expulsion of officers. In this case, the failure of both the union and respondent companies to follow the grievance procedure should not deprive the petitioner of his legitimate recourse. Consequently, the case was remanded to the Labor Arbiter for disposition with dispatch.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The original and exclusive jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters covers unfair labor practice cases, termination disputes, wage and labor condition disputes, claims for damages, cases arising from violations of labor laws, and other claims arising from employer-employee relations. (Article 217, Labor Code)

  • Cases arising from the interpretation of collective bargaining agreements and company personnel policies shall be referred to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration, but may still be submitted to a Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators for adjudication. (Article 217 and 261, Labor Code)

  • The Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators has jurisdiction over grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and company personnel policies. Gross violations of the CBA are not considered unfair labor practices but are resolved as grievances. (Article 261, Labor Code)

  • Termination disputes fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of labor arbiters by express provision of law, unless there is an express stipulation in the CBA that such disputes should be resolved through voluntary arbitration.

  • The use of the word "may" in a CBA provision indicates the intention of the parties to reserve the right to submit termination disputes to the jurisdiction of a labor arbiter.

  • Parties must strictly observe the agreed procedure for resolving grievances and submitting disputes to voluntary arbitration.

  • It is the duty of the labor organization and its officers to inform its members about the provisions of the constitution and by-laws, collective bargaining agreement, and all their rights and obligations under labor laws.

  • Violation of the rights and conditions of union membership is a ground for cancellation of union registration or expulsion of officers.

  • Termination disputes arising from the interpretation and implementation of collective bargaining agreements fall under the jurisdiction of the voluntary arbitrator.

  • Cases involving the application, implementation, or enforcement of company personnel policies should be referred to the voluntary arbitrator based on the procedures agreed upon in the CBA.

  • Waiver may be inferred if a party fails to timely invoke the provisions of the CBA requiring the referral of unresolved disputes to a voluntary arbitrator.

  • The refusal of both the union and respondent companies to follow the grievance procedure should not deprive the petitioner of his legitimate recourse.