Atlas
Farms Inc. vs NLRC
GR No. 142244
November 18, 2002
Facts:
Jaime O. dela Peña was employed as a veterinary aide
by petitioner and terminated. He was re-hired by petitioner and given the
additional job of feed mill operator. He was instructed to train selected
workers to operate the feed mill. He was allegedly caught urinating and
defecating on company premises not intended for the purpose. The farm manager
of petitioner issued a formal notice directing him to explain why disciplinary
action should not be taken against him for violating company rules and
regulations. Peña never bothered to explain thus he was terminated with
separation pay. Marcial I. Abion was a carpenter/mason and a maintenance man
whose employed by petitioner and allegedly caused the clogging of the fishpond
drainage resulting in damages worth several hundred thousand pesos when he
improperly disposed of the cut grass and other waste materials into the pond‘s
drainage system. Upon failure to explain what happened after notice, he was
terminated with separation pay. Peña and Abion filed separate complaints for
illegal dismissal that were later consolidated. Both claimed that their
termination from service was due to petitioner‘s suspicion that they were the
leaders in a plan to form a union to compete and replace the existing
management-dominated union. Labor arbiter dismissed their complaints on the
ground that the grievance machinery in the collective bargaining agreement had
not yet been exhausted. Private respondents availed of the grievance process,
but later on refiled the case due to lack of sympathy on petitioner‘s part to
engage in conciliation proceedings. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss, on
the ground of lack of jurisdiction as it belonged to the grievance machinery
and thereafter the voluntary arbitrator, as provided in the CBA. Labor arbiter
dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. Thus, private respondents brought
the case to the NLRC, which reversed the labor arbiter‘s decision. Dissatisfied
with the NLRC ruling, petitioner went to the Court of Appeals which affirmed
the same. Hence this petition.
Issue:
WON the labor arbiter and the NLRC had
jurisdiction to decide complaints for illegal dismissal?
Ruling:
Article 217 of the Labor Code provides that labor
arbiters have original and exclusive jurisdiction over termination disputes. A
possible exception is provided in Article 261 of the Labor Code, which provides
that- The Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators shall have
original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide all unresolved
grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement
of company personnel policies referred to in the immediately preceding article.
Accordingly, violations of a Collective Bargaining Agreement, except those
which are gross in character, shall no longer be treated as unfair labor
practice and shall be resolved as grievances under the Collective Bargaining
Agreement. For purposes of this article, gross violations of Collective
Bargaining Agreement shall mean flagrant and or malicious refusal to comply
with the economic provisions of such agreement. The Commission, its Regional
Offices and the Regional Directors of the Department of Labor and Employment
shall not entertain disputes, grievances or matters under the exclusive and
original jurisdiction of the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary
Arbitrators and shall immediately dispose and refer the same to the grievance
Machinery or Arbitration provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Where
the dispute is just in the interpretation, implementation or enforcement stage,
it may be referred to the grievance machinery set up in the CBA, or brought to
voluntary arbitration. But, where there was already actual termination, with
alleged violation of the employee‘s rights, it is already cognizable by the
labor arbiter. In sum, we conclude that the labor arbiter and then the NLRC had
jurisdiction over the cases involving private respondents’ dismissal, and no
error was committed by the appellate court in upholding their assumption of
jurisdiction.
