G.R. No. 174040-41 - Insular Hotel Employees Union-NFL vs. Waterfront Insular Hotel Davao

On November 6, 2000, Waterfront Insular Hotel Davao (the “Hotel”) notified DOLE Region XI of a six-month suspension of operations due to severe business losses, promising full benefits if it could not resume within that period.
Domy R. Rojas, president of Davao Insular Hotel Free Employees Union-NFL (DIHFEU-NFL), sent letters (Nov 8, 10, 20, 25 2000) and a February 2001 Manifesto offering concessions: suspension of CBA economic provisions, retirement of long-service employees, reduced leaves, allowances, group insurance, multi-tasking, and fixed manning at reduced workforce.
In May 2001 the Hotel and DIHFEU-NFL executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) implementing those terms; 100 rank-and-file were retained under a new pay scale, and each employee signed a “Reconfirmation of Employment.”

On August 22, 2002, Darius Joves and Debbie Planas, claiming to represent National Federation of Labor (NFL), filed a Notice of Mediation with NCMB Region XI alleging unlawful diminution of wages under the MOA. They submitted undated, unnotarized Special Powers of Attorney.
A Submission Agreement (Aug 29, 2002) named “Insular Hotel Employees Union-NFL” (IHEU-NFL) as complainant and chose AVA Alfredo Olvida. The Hotel moved to withdraw, challenging jurisdiction and authority to file. AVA Olvida denied the motion but on March 18, 2003 modified the party-complainant to IHEU-NFL et al.
After procedural skirmishes—including motions to inhibit and remand—the NCMB selected AVA Rosalina Montejo. On April 5, 2004, she declared the MOA invalid, ordered reinstatement of pre-MOA wages/benefits, and attorney’s fees.

Both parties appealed. In CA-G.R. SP No. 83657 the Hotel challenged NCMB jurisdiction and MOA validity; in CA-G.R. SP No. 83831 counsel Cullo sought additional wage differential awards.
On October 11, 2005 the CA granted the Hotel’s petition, declared the MOA valid and enforceable, and directed compliance. A July 13, 2006 motion for reconsideration was denied.
Counsel Cullo filed this Rule 45 petition raising three errors: AVA’s lack of jurisdiction, CA’s disregard of CBA provisions, and misapplication of Article 100 of the Labor Code.

Whether the voluntary arbitrator and NCMB lacked jurisdiction because the mediation notice did not name the local union and was filed by unauthorized individuals.
Whether the CA erred in upholding the MOA despite alleged unproven financial crisis and CBA provisions.
Whether Article 100 of the Labor Code prohibits diminution of benefits agreed upon after its promulgation.