June 13, 2012
Ponente: Peralta, J.
FACTS
Nelson R. Dulay was employed by General Charterers Inc. (GCI), a subsidiary of Aboitiz Jebsen Maritime Inc., since 1986. He initially worked as an ordinary seaman and later as bosun (senior crewman of the deck department and is responsible for the components of a ship's hull) on a contractual basis. From September 3, 1999 up to July 19, 2000, Nelson was detailed in GCI's vessel, the MV Kickapoo Belle.
Nelson's employment contract expired on August 13, 2000. He died 25 days later due to acute renal failure secondary to septicemia.
At the time of his death, Nelson was a bona fide member of the Associated Marine Officers and Seamans Union of the Philippines (AMOSUP), GCI's collective bargaining agent. Nelson's widow, Merridy Jane, thereafter claimed for death benefits through the grievance procedure of the CBA between AMOSUP and GCI. However, on January 29, 2001, the grievance procedure was declared deadlocked as GCI and Aboitiz Jebsen refused to grant the benefits sought by Merridy Jane.
On March 5, 2001, Merridy Jane filed a complaint with the NLRC Sub-Regional Arbitration Board in General Santos City against GCI for death and medical benefits and damages. Three days later, Joven Mar, Nelson's brother, received P20k from GCI and Aboitiz Jebsen pursuant to Article 20(A)2 of the CBA and signed a certification acknowledging receipt of the amount and releasing AMOSUP from further liability.
Merridy Jane contended that she was entitled to the aggregate sum of US$90k pursuant to Article 20 (A)1 of the CBA, and that the P20k already received by Joven Mar should be considered advance payment of the total claim.
GCI, on the other hand, asserted that the NLRC had no jurisdiction over the action on account of the absence of employer-employee relationship between GCI and Nelson at the time of the latter's death. Nelson also had no claims against GCI and Aboitiz Jebsen for sick leave allowance/medical benefit by reason of the completion of his contract with GCI.
They further alleged that Merridy Jane was not entitled to death benefits because GCI and Aboitiz Jebsen are only liable for such in case of death of the seafarer during the term of his contract pursuant to the POEA contract and the cause of his death is not work-related. Nonetheless, they admitted liability only with respect to article 20(A)2 of the CBA.
LABOR ARBITER: Ruled in favor of Merridy Jane by virtue of Article 217 (a), paragraph 6 of the Labor Code and the existence of a reasonable causal connection between the employer-employee relationship and the claim asserted. It ordered GCI to pay P4,621,300.00, the equivalent of US$90k less P20k, at the time of judgment. The Labor Arbiter also ruled that the proximate cause of Nelsons death was not work-related.
NLRC: Affirmed the LA's decision as to the grant of death benefits under the CBA but reversed the latter's ruling as to the proximate cause of Nelson's death.
CA: Reversed the NLRC's ruling and referred the case to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board for the designation of the Voluntary Arbitrator or the constitution of a panel of Voluntary Arbitrators for the appropriate resolution of the issue on the matter of the applicable CBA provision.
The CA ruled that while the suit filed by Merridy Jane was a money claim, the same basically involved the interpretation and application of the provisions in the subject CBA. As such, jurisdiction belonged to the voluntary arbitrator and not the labor arbiter.
Hence, the instant petition.
RULING
Petition denied. CA ruling affirmed.
Whether the NLRC has jurisdiction over the subject money clam. – NO.
Merridy Jane's argument: Sec. 10* of RA 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, vests jurisdiction on the appropriate branches of the NLRC to entertain disputes regarding the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement involving migrant or overseas Filipino workers. She argues that the abovementioned section amended Article 217 (c) of the Labor Code which, in turn, confers jurisdiction upon voluntary arbitrators over interpretation or implementation of collective bargaining agreements and interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies.
GCI's argument: In the present case, Article 217, paragraph (c) as well as Article 261*** of the Labor Code remain to be the governing provisions of law with respect to unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation and implementation of collective bargaining agreements. Under these provisions of law, jurisdiction remains with voluntary arbitrators.
SC ruling: RA 8042, a special law governing OFWs, does not have any specific provision which provides for jurisdiction over disputes or unresolved grievances regarding the interpretation or implementation of a CBA. Sec. 10 of R.A. 8042, which is cited by Merridy Jane, simply speaks, in general, of claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages.
On the other hand, Articles 217(c) and 261 of the Labor Code are very specific in stating that voluntary arbitrators have jurisdiction over cases arising from the interpretation or implementation of CBAs. Stated differently, the instant case involves a situation where the special statute (RA 8042) refers to a subject in general, which the general statute (Labor Code) treats in particular.
In the present case, the basic issue raised by Merridy Jane in her complaint filed with the NLRC is: Which provision of the subject CBA applies insofar as death benefits due to the heirs of Nelson are concerned? The Court agrees with the CA in holding that this issue clearly involves the interpretation or implementation of the said CBA. Thus, the specific or special provisions of the Labor Code govern.
Furthermore, a careful reading of the subject CBA would show that GCI and AMOSUP really intended to bring to conciliation or voluntary arbitration any dispute or conflict in the interpretation or application of the provisions of their CBA. It is settled that when the parties have validly agreed on a procedure for resolving grievances and to submit a dispute to voluntary arbitration then that procedure should be strictly observed.
In addition, Sec. 29 of the prevailing Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean Going Vessels, promulgated by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) and as interpeted by DOLE, provides as follows: "In cases of claims and disputes arising from this employment, the parties covered by a collective bargaining agreement shall submit the claim or dispute to the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators."
It is clear that the interpretation of the DOLE, in consultation with their counterparts in the respective committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives, as well as the DFA and the POEA is that with respect to disputes involving claims of Filipino seafarers wherein the parties are covered by a collective bargaining agreement, the dispute or claim should be submitted to the jurisdiction of a voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators. It is only in the absence of a collective bargaining agreement that parties may opt to submit the dispute to either the NLRC or to voluntary arbitration.
The Philippine Constitution provides, under the third paragraph, Section 3, Article XIII, thereof that [t]he State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.
Consistent with this constitutional provision, Article 211 of the Labor Code provides the declared policy of the State [t]o promote and emphasize the primacy of free collective bargaining and negotiations, including voluntary arbitration, mediation and conciliation, as modes of settling labor or industrial disputes.
DOCTRINE
Disputes involving claims of Filipino seafarers
wherein the parties are covered by a collective bargaining agreement
should be submitted to the jurisdiction of a voluntary arbitrator or
panel of arbitrators. It is only in the absence of a collective
bargaining agreement that parties may opt to submit the dispute to
either the NLRC or to voluntary arbitration. This is in consonance with
the policy of the State to promote voluntary arbitration as a mode of
settling labor disputes.
