4/10/2020

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

697 Phil. 250

SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 197309, October 10, 2012 ]
ACE NAVIGATION CO., INC., VELA INTERNATIONAL MARINE LTD.,
AND/OR RODOLFO PAMINTUAN, PETITIONERS, VS. TEODORICO
FERNANDEZ, ASSISTED BY GLENITA FERNANDEZ, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
BRION, J.:
For

resolution

is

the

petition for review on certiorari[1] which seeks to nullify the

decision[2] dated September 22, 2010 and the resolution[3] dated May 26, 2011 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 112081.
The Antecedents
On October 9, 2008, seaman Teodorico Fernandez (Fernandez), assisted by his wife,
Glenita Fernandez, filed with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a
complaint for disability benefits, with prayer for moral and exemplary damages, plus
attorney’s fees, against Ace Navigation Co., Inc., Vela International Marine Ltd., and/or
Rodolfo Pamintuan (petitioners).
The petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint,[4] contending that the labor arbiter
had no jurisdiction over the dispute. They argued that exclusive original jurisdiction is
with the voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators, pursuant to Section 29 of
the POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), since the parties are covered by
the AMOSUP-TCC or AMOSUP-VELA (as later cited by the petitioners) collective
bargaining agreement (CBA). Under Section 14 of the CBA, a dispute between a
seafarer and the company shall be settled through the grievance machinery and
mandatory voluntary arbitration.
Fernandez opposed the motion.[5] He argued that inasmuch as his complaint involves a
money claim, original and exclusive jurisdiction over the case is vested with the labor
arbiter.
The Compulsory Arbitration Rulings
On December 9, 2008, Labor Arbiter Romelita N. Rioflorido denied the motion to
dismiss, holding that under Section 10 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042, the Migrant
Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, the labor arbiter has original and exclusive
jurisdiction over money claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by
virtue of any law or contract, notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary.[6]
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55239

1/11

Select target paragraph3