Case Digest (G.R. No. 240130)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 240130)
Facts:
Dorelco Employees Union-ALU-TUCP v. Don Orestes Romualdez Electric Cooperative (DORELCO), Inc., G.R. No. 240130, March 15, 2021, Supreme Court Second Division, Lopez, M., J., writing for the Court.The petitioner, Dorelco Employees Union-ALU-TUCP (the Union), and respondent Don Orestes Romualdez Electric Cooperative, Inc. (the Company) submitted to voluntary arbitration before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) the question whether rank-and-file employees were entitled to salary adjustments under the parties’ 2010–2014 Collective Bargaining Agreement. Several employees retired during the pendency of the controversy; some retirees (Pingol, et al.) refused to execute quitclaims and later received retirement benefits with salary differentials, while others (Lumbre, et al.) executed quitclaims.
On September 25, 2012, the NCMB voluntary arbitrator awarded salary increases for 2010 and 2011 to employees covered by the CBA. Subsequently, the Union submitted a separate arbitration (docketed AC-511-RB8-04-04-07-2017) to determine whether the retirees who had executed quitclaims (Lumbre, et al.) could claim the salary adjustments; on September 22, 2017 the voluntary arbitrator ruled they were not entitled to the increases because they had signed quitclaims. The Union filed a motion for reconsideration; the arbitrator denied it on November 9, 2017, and the Union received a copy of that resolution on November 27, 2017.
The Union filed a petition for review under Rule 43 with the Court of Appeals (CA) on December 12, 2017 (docketed CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 11429). On March 8, 2018, the CA dismissed the petition as untimely, holding that decisions of voluntary arbitrators become final and executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt and that an appeal to the CA must be filed within ten (10) days from notice. The Union’s motion for reconsideration of the CA dismissal was denied on May 21, 2018. The Union then filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, assailing the CA’s rulings and arguing the proper period to appeal is fifteen (15) days from receipt of the denial of the motion for reconsideration and that Lumbre, et al. remain entitled to salary differentials despite their quitclaims. The Company maintained that the 10-day period applied.
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly dismiss the petition as filed beyond the reglementary period for appealing a voluntary arbitrator’s decision?
- If not, what is the correct construction of the applicable reglementary periods — i.e., whether the 10-day period in Article 276 of the Labor Code or the 15-day period in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court governs an appeal from a voluntary arbitrator’s decision after a motion for reconsideration — and may the Supreme Court’s later decision in Guagua National Colleges v. Court of Appeals be applied to this case?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)