Case Digest (G.R. No. 197309)
Facts:
Ace Navigation Co., Inc., Vela International Marine Ltd., and/or Rodolfo Pamintuan v. Teodorico Fernandez, assisted by Glenita Fernandez, G.R. No. 197309, October 10, 2012, the Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court.On October 9, 2008, seaman Teodorico Fernandez, assisted by his wife, filed with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a complaint for disability benefits against petitioners Ace Navigation Co., Inc., Vela International Marine Ltd., and/or Rodolfo Pamintuan. The petitioners moved to dismiss, asserting that the dispute fell under the grievance machinery and mandatory voluntary arbitration provided in the parties’ Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and the POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA‑SEC), Section 29, hence was within the exclusive original jurisdiction of voluntary arbitrators.
On December 9, 2008, Labor Arbiter Romelita N. Rioflorido denied the motion to dismiss, invoking Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995) that vests labor arbiters with original and exclusive jurisdiction over money claims. The petitioners appealed to the NLRC, which denied the appeal as interlocutory and remanded the case to the labor arbiter; its denial of reconsideration prompted the petitioners to seek relief from the Court of Appeals (CA) by way of certiorari under Rule 65.
By decision dated September 22, 2010, the Court of Appeals denied the petition on procedural and substantive grounds: procedurally, the CA held the petitioners pursued the wrong remedy since an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and not appealable under the NLRC rules; substantively, it agreed with the labor arbiter that Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 conferred original and exclusive jurisdiction to the labor arbiter over Fernandez’s money claims and found no unequivocal CBA language submitting such money claims to voluntary arbitration. The CA likewise noted that provisions of the POEA‑SEC are qualified by Labor Code jurisprudence (notably Vivero v. Court of Appeals).
The petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court. They argued (1) the IRR of R.A. No. 8042, as amended by R.A. No. 10022, mandated voluntary arbitration for OFWs covered by CBAs; (2) the AMOSUP‑VELA CBA contains unequivocal, mandatory language referring disputes to arbitration despite use of the word “may”; and (3) NLRC policy directives and recent Supreme Court authority (notably Estate of Nelson R. Dulay v. Aboiti...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the denial of the petitioners’ motion to dismiss an interlocutory order not subject to appeal?
- Who has original and exclusive jurisdiction over Fernandez’s disability (money) claim — the labor arbiter under Section 10, R.A. No. 8042, or the voluntary arbitrator/panel pursuant to the parties’ CBA and ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)