Case Digest (G.R. No. 172642)
Facts:
Estate of Nelson R. Dulay, represented by his wife Merridy Jane P. Dulay v. Aboitiz Jebsen Maritime, Inc. and General Charterers, Inc., G.R. No. 172642, June 13, 2012, the Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.Nelson R. Dulay was employed by General Charterers, Inc. (GCI), a subsidiary of Aboitiz Jebsen Maritime, Inc., from 1986 and last served as bosun on board the MV Kickapoo Belle from September 3, 1999 until the end of his contract on July 19, 2000. He died on August 13, 2000—25 days after his contract ended—of acute renal failure secondary to septicemia. At the time of his death he was a bona fide member of the Associated Marine Officers and Seamen’s Union of the Philippines (AMOSUP), GCI’s collective bargaining agent.
Nelson’s widow, Merridy Jane, pursued death benefits under the parties’ Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). When grievance procedures under the CBA proved deadlocked (January 29, 2001), she filed a complaint with the NLRC Sub‑Regional Arbitration Board in General Santos City on March 5, 2001 claiming, inter alia, US$90,000 under Article 20(A)1 of the CBA. On March 8, 2001, Nelson’s brother, Joven Mar, received P20,000 pursuant to Article 20(A)2 and executed a certification releasing AMOSUP from further liability; petitioner maintained that the P20,000 was an advance on the US$90,000 claim.
Respondents (GCI and Aboitiz Jebsen) contended there was no employer‑employee relationship at the time of death (contract had expired), that liability for death benefits under the POEA contract arises only if death occurs during the contract term and that the cause of death was not work‑related; they admitted liability only under Article 20(A)2 (already discharged). The Labor Arbiter took cognizance under Article 217(a), par. 6 of the Labor Code and found in favor of Merridy Jane, ordering payment of P4,621,300.00 (US$90,000 less P20,000) but holding the proximate cause of death was not work‑related.
On appeal the NLRC affirmed the award of death benefits under the CBA but reversed the Labor Arbiter’s finding regarding proximate cause. Respondents then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in exercising jurisdiction and that unresolved grievances over CBA interpretation fall within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of voluntary arbitrators.
On July 11, 2005 the CA (CA‑G.R. SP No. 76489) granted the petition and referred the case to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board for designation of a voluntary arbitrator or panel, concluding that the dispute primarily involved interpretation/implementation of the CBA and thus belonged to voluntary arbitration. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on April 18, 2006. Petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court challen...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that the Labor Arbiter (and thus the NLRC) had no jurisdiction over petitioner’s claim because the dispute involves interpretation or implementation of the CBA?
- Does Section 10 of R.A. 8042 vest original and exclusive jurisdiction in the Labor Arbiters/NLRC over disputes involving overseas Filipino workers where the claim concerns the interpretation or implementation ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)