4/10/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly We first rule on the procedural question arising from the labor arbiter’s denial of the petitioners’ motion to dismiss the complaint. On this point, Section 6, Rule V of The 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC provides: On or before the date set for the mandatory conciliation and mediation conference, the respondent may file a motion to dismiss. Any motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or that the cause of action is barred by prior judgment, prescription, or forum shopping, shall be immediately resolved by the Labor Arbiter through a written order. An order denying the motion to dismiss, or suspending its resolution until the final determination of the case, is not appealable. [underscoring ours] Corollarily, Section 10, Rule VI of the same Rules states: Frivolous or Dilatory Appeals. – No appeal from an interlocutory order shall be entertained. To discourage frivolous or dilatory appeals, including those taken from interlocutory orders, the Commission may censure or cite in contempt the erring parties and their counsels, or subject them to reasonable fine or penalty. In Indiana Aerospace University v. Comm. on Higher Educ.,[25] the Court declared that “[a]n order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory”; the proper remedy in this situation is to appeal after a decision has been rendered. Clearly, the denial of the petitioners’ motion to dismiss in the present case was an interlocutory order and, therefore, not subject to appeal as the CA aptly noted. The petition’s procedural lapse notwithstanding, the CA proceeded to review the merits of the case and adjudged the petition unmeritorious. We find the CA’s action in order. The Labor Code itself declares that “it is the spirit and intention of this Code that the Commission and its members and the Labor Arbiters shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively and without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process.”[26] We now address the focal question of who has the original and exclusive jurisdiction over Fernandez’s disability claim — the labor arbiter under Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042, as amended, or the voluntary arbitration mechanism as prescribed in the parties’ CBA and the POEA-SEC? The answer lies in the State’s labor relations policy laid down in the Constitution and fleshed out in the enabling statute, the Labor Code. Section 3, Article XIII (on Social Justice and Human Rights) of the Constitution declares: xxxx elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55239 5/11