Case Digest (G.R. No. 95940)
Facts:
Pantranco North Express, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission and Urbano Suniga, G.R. No. 95940, July 24, 1996, Supreme Court Third Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court.The petitioner is Pantranco North Express, Inc. and the respondents are the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and private respondent Urbano Suniga. Suniga was hired in 1964 as a bus conductor and became a member of the Pantranco Employees Association-PTGWO. Under the parties’ May 2, 1989 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), a compulsory retirement clause provided retirement upon either reaching age 60 or completing 25 years of service, whichever comes first.
On August 12, 1989 Suniga was retired pursuant to that CBA provision at age 52 after completing 25 years’ service and received P49,300.00 as retirement pay. On February 15, 1990 he filed with the Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch of the NLRC in Dagupan City a complaint for illegal dismissal (NLRC Case No. SUB-RAB-01-02-7-0038-90). His complaint was consolidated with two similar illegal dismissal cases filed by other employees (Ricardo M. Rezada and Gregorio A. Lachica), who were non-union members.
Labor Arbiter Ricardo N. Olairez conducted hearings and on March 26, 1990 rendered a decision finding the three complainants illegally and unjustly dismissed, ordering reinstatement with full backwages and benefits (subject to specified computations), and awarding attorney’s fees; the arbiter treated amounts already received as advances on retirement pay to be deducted later. Petitioner appealed to the NLRC, which, by a Resolution promulg...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Labor Arbiter have jurisdiction over Suniga’s complaint for illegal dismissal, or was jurisdiction vested exclusively in voluntary arbitrators/panel under the CBA (Article 261, Labor Code)?
- Was the CBA provision permitting compulsory retirement after twenty-five (25) years of service (even before age 60) legal and enforceable, and did Suniga’s compulsory retirement therefo...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)