Case Digest (G.R. No. 157775)
Facts:
Leyte IV Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Leyeco IV Employees Union‑ALU, G.R. No. 157775, October 19, 2007, the Supreme Court Third Division, Austria‑Martinez, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Leyte IV Electric Cooperative, Inc. and respondent Leyeco IV Employees Union‑ALU entered into a five‑year Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) effective January 1, 1998 covering rank‑and‑file employees. On June 7, 2000 the union, through its Regional Vice‑President, demanded payment of holiday pay as provided under Section 2, Article VIII of the CBA; petitioner replied on June 20, 2000 asserting that it had already paid the holiday pays after reviewing available pay slips.
After exhausting the grievance machinery, the parties agreed to arbitrate the interpretation and implementation of the CBA provision before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB), Regional Office No. VIII. Both parties filed position papers: the union acknowledged that employees were paid for all calendar days but nevertheless demanded separate holiday pay supported by computations claiming unpaid legal holidays totaling P1,054,393.07 and pay slips; petitioner insisted its payroll computation used a 360‑day divisor (Basic Monthly Salary × 12 ÷ 360) which, it claimed, already included payment for regular and special holidays and other unworked paid days.
On March 1, 2001, Voluntary Arbitrator Antonio C. Lopez, Jr. rendered a Decision awarding the union P1,054,393.07, finding that payroll slips did not reflect payment for holidays and rejecting petitioner’s divisor argument. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated June 17, 2002, received by petitioner on June 27, 2002. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA) on July 27, 2002 (received by the CA on August 15, 2002), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Voluntary Arbitrator for ignoring the 360‑day divisor and for relying solely on payroll slips.
In its Resolution dated September 4, 2002, the CA dismissed petitioner’s Rule 65 petition for adopting the wrong mode of appeal, holding that decisions of voluntary arbitrators are appealable to the CA under Section 1, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (citing Luzon Development Bank v. Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees) and that the proper remedy was a petition for review under Rule 43 which the petitioner had failed to timely file. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on February 28, 2003. Petitioner then fil...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the Court of Appeals correct in dismissing petitioner’s petition for certiorari under Rule 65 on the ground that the proper remedy from a decision of a voluntary arbitrator is a petition for review under Rule 43?
- Did the Voluntary Arbitrator commit grave abuse of discretion in finding petitioner liable for unpaid holiday pay despite petitioner’s use of a 360‑day divisor that, petitioner conte...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)