4/10/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly SEC for submission of the present dispute to voluntary arbitration. Consistent with this finding, Fernandez’s contention — that his complaint for disability benefits is a money claim that falls within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the labor arbiter under Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 — is untenable. We likewise reject his argument that he never referred his claim to the grievance machinery (so that no unresolved grievance exists as required under Article 261 of the Labor Code), and that the parties to the case are not the union and the employer.[30] Needless to state, no such distinction exists in the parties’ CBA and the POEA-SEC. It bears stressing at this point that we are upholding the jurisdiction of the voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators over the present dispute, not only because of the clear language of the parties’ CBA on the matter; more importantly, we so uphold the voluntary arbitrator’s jurisdiction, in recognition of the State’s express preference for voluntary modes of dispute settlement, such as conciliation and voluntary arbitration as expressed in the Constitution, the law and the rules. In this light, we see no need to further consider the petitioners’ submission regarding the IRR of the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, as amended by R.A. No. 10022, except to note that the IRR lends further support to our ruling. In closing, we quote with approval a most recent Court pronouncement on the same issue, thus – 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.[31] (emphasis ours) WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are SET ASIDE. Teodorico Fernandez’s disability claim is REFERRED to the Grievance Resolution Committee of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement and/or the Mandatory Arbitration Committee, if warranted. SO ORDERED. Carpio, (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Perez, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur. [1] Rollo, pp. 33-52; filed pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. [2] Id. at 61-73; penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan-Castillo, and concurred in by Associates Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Franchito N. Diamante. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55239 9/11