4/10/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly which were initially processed in the grievance machinery as provided in the existing Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) between parties, through the issuance of an Order of Dismissal and referral of the disputes to the National Conciliation Mediation Board (NCMB) for voluntary arbitration. FOR STRICT COMPLIANCE.[17] 4. On July 31, 2012,[18] the petitioners manifested before the Court that on June 13, 2012, the Court’s Second Division issued a ruling in G.R. No. 172642, entitled Estate of Nelson R. Dulay, represented by his wife Merridy Jane P. Dulay v. Aboitiz Jebsen Maritime, Inc., and General Charterers, Inc., upholding the jurisdiction of the voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators over a seafarer’s money claim. They implore the Court that since the factual backdrop and the issues involved in the case are similar to the present dispute, the Dulay ruling should be applied to this case and which should accordingly be referred to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board for voluntary arbitration. The Case for Fernandez In compliance with the Court’s directive,[19] Fernandez filed on October 7, 2011 his Comment[20] (on the Petition) with the plea that the petition be dismissed for lack of merit. Fernandez presents the following arguments: 1. The IRR of the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 (R.A. No. 8042), as amended by R.A. No. 10022,[21] did not divest the labor arbiters of their original and exclusive jurisdiction over money claims arising from employment, for nowhere in said IRR is there such a divestment. 2. The voluntary arbitrators do not have jurisdiction over the present controversy as can be deduced from Articles 261 and 262 of the Labor Code. Fernandez explains that his complaint does not involve any “unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement [nor] from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies[.]”[22] As he never referred his claim to the grievance machinery, there is no “unresolved grievance” to speak of. His complaint involves a claim for compensation and damages which is outside the voluntary arbitrator’s jurisdiction under Article 261. Further, only disputes involving the union and the company shall be referred to the grievance machinery and to voluntary arbitration, as the Court held in Sanyo Philippines Workers Union-PSSLU v. Cañizares[23] and Silva v. CA.[24] 3. The CA correctly ruled that no unequivocal wordings appear in the CBA for the mandatory referral of Fernandez’s disability claim to a voluntary arbitrator. The Court’s Ruling elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55239 4/11