4/10/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
The petitioners moved for reconsideration of the CA decision, but the appellate court
denied the motion, reiterating its earlier pronouncement that on the ground alone of
the petitioners’ wrong choice of remedy, the petition must fail.
The Petition
The petitioners are now before this Court praying for a reversal of the CA judgment on
the following grounds:
1. The CA committed a reversible error in disregarding the Omnibus Implementing
Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995,
[12] as amended by R.A. No. 10022,[13] mandating that “For OFWs with collective
bargaining agreements, the case shall be submitted for voluntary arbitration in
accordance with Articles 261 and 262 of the Labor Code.”[14]
The petitioners bewail the CA’s rejection of the above argument for the reason that the
remedy they pursued was inconsistent with the 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the
NLRC. Citing Municipality of Sta. Fe v. Municipality of Aritao,[15] they argue that the
“dismissal of a case for lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings.”
In any event, they posit that the IRR of R.A. No. 10022 is in the nature of an adjective
or procedural law which must be given retroactive effect and which should have been
applied by the CA in resolving the present case.
2. The CA committed a reversible error in ruling that the AMOSUP-VELA CBA does
not contain unequivocal wordings for the mandatory referral of Fernandez’s claim to
voluntary arbitration.
The petitioners assail the CA’s failure to explain the basis “for ruling that no explicit or
unequivocal wordings appeared on said CBA for the mandatory referral of the disability
claim to arbitration.”[16] They surmise that the CA construed the phrase “either party
may refer the case to a MANDATORY ARBITRATION COMMITTEE” under Section 14.7(a)
of the CBA as merely permissive and not mandatory because of the use of the word
“may.” They contend that notwithstanding the use of the word “may,” the parties
unequivocally and unmistakably agreed to refer the present disability claim to
mandatory arbitration.
3. The CA committed a reversible error in disregarding the NLRC memorandum
prescribing the appropriate action for complaints and/or proceedings which were
initially processed in the grievance machinery of existing CBAs. In their motion for
reconsideration with the CA, the petitioners manifested that the appellate court’s
assailed decision had been modified by the following directive of the NLRC:
As one of the measures being adopted by our agency in response to the
Platform and Policy Pronouncements on Labor Employment, you are hereby
directed to immediately dismiss the complaint and/or terminate proceedings
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55239
3/11