Case Summary (G.R. No. 202454)
Core Issue Presented
Whether the CA gravely abused its discretion in denying petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator had become final and executory under Article 276 (10-day rule), thereby rendering the CA without jurisdiction to entertain respondents’ petition for review; and, more broadly, whether the 10-day period in Article 276 or the 15-day period in Rule 43 governs the reglementary period for appealing a voluntary arbitrator’s decision.
Relevant Factual Background
Pursuant to Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 6728, GNC imposed a 7% tuition fee increase for school year 2006–2007 and allocated a portion of the 70% net incremental proceeds to fund the retirement program. The unions challenged that unilateral disposition as contrary to Section 5(2). The parties submitted the dispute to voluntary arbitration. Voluntary Arbitrator Bacungan rendered a decision on June 16, 2008 in favor of GNC, holding that retirement benefits were “other benefits” chargeable to the 70% net incremental proceeds. The unions received a copy on June 16, 2008, sought and obtained from the CA an extension to file a petition for review, and filed their petition on July 16, 2008. GNC moved to dismiss on grounds that the award became final and executory after ten days per Article 276, making the CA devoid of appellate jurisdiction. The CA denied the Motion to Dismiss and later denied reconsideration; GNC then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.
Relevant Procedural and Jurisprudential Background
Historically, voluntary arbitrator awards were considered final and immediately executory but were nonetheless subject to limited judicial review (e.g., Oceanic Bic Division v. Romero). Luzon Development Bank v. Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees recognized appeals from voluntary arbitrators’ awards to the Court of Appeals by petition for review under Rule 43, invoking Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95 (and similar administrative circulars) to provide a uniform appellate route. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions applied either a 15-day period (Rule 43) or a 10-day period (Article 276) inconsistently. Coca-Cola Bottlers (2005) referenced the 10-day statutory period; other decisions such as Sevilla Trading and Manila Midtown applied the 15-day Rule 43 period. Teng v. Pagahac (2010) clarified that the 10-day period in Article 276 should be understood as the period to file a motion for reconsideration before the voluntary arbitrator (promoting exhaustion of administrative remedies), with the 15-day Rule 43 period applying to the filing of a petition for review to the CA after resolution of the motion for reconsideration.
Supreme Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court dismissed GNC’s petition for certiorari and affirmed the CA resolution. The Court held that the petition for review under Rule 43 must be filed within 15 days pursuant to Section 4, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. It construed the 10-day period in Article 276 as the period within which an aggrieved party may file a motion for reconsideration before the voluntary arbitrator (or, in specified contingencies, to seek a writ of execution), not as the exclusive period for seeking appellate review before the CA that would preclude the 15-day Rule 43 period once reconsideration is had and resolved.
Legal Reasoning — Interpretation and Harmonization of Conflicting Periods
- Statutory and remedial framework: The Court recognized the textual presence of the 10-day finality clause in Article 276 but stressed that jurisprudence and administrative practice had long treated voluntary arbitrator awards as appealable to the CA under Rule 43. The Court sought a harmonized reading that respects both the Labor Code and the Rules of Court.
- Function of the 10-day period: Following Teng v. Pagahac and construing Article 276 in the context of exhaustion of administrative remedies, the Court concluded that Congress intended the 10-day period to afford the aggrieved party the opportunity to file a motion for reconsideration with the voluntary arbitrator. This approach promotes administrative correction of errors and avoids premature judicial intervention.
- Application of the 15-day Rule 43 period: After resolution of the motion for reconsideration (or after the opportunity to file such a motion has been afforded), the aggrieved party may file a petition for review under Rule 43 within the 15-day reglementary period from notice pursuant to Section 4, Rule 43. Thus, the 15-day period governs the filing of the petition for review to the CA in line with established appellate practice.
- On Rule versus statute: Although earlier decisions emphasized that rules of court are subordinate to statute, the Court resolved apparent conflicts by reading Article 276 as establishing a deadline for motions for reconsideration rather than an absolute bar to appellate review within fifteen days; this interpretation avoids a result where an appellant could be deprived of judicial review by a restrictive reading of the 10-day clause.
Disposition on the Motion to Dismiss and Scope of Certiorari
The Court reiterated that certiorari is not the ordinary remedy to review the denial of a motion to dismiss; certiorari corrects grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The C
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 202454)
Case Caption, Citation and Date
- En Banc decision reported at 839 Phil. 309, G.R. No. 188492, promulgated August 28, 2018.
- Title: Guagua National Colleges, petitioner, v. Court of Appeals, GNC Faculty and Labor Union and GNC Non-Teaching Maintenance Labor Union, respondents.
- Opinion penned by Justice Bersamin; concurrence by Leonardo-De Castro, C.J., Carpio, Peralta, Del Castillo, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Jardeleza, Caguioa, Tijam, A. Reyes, Jr., Gesmundo, and J. Reyes, Jr., JJ.
Central Legal Question
- Which reglementary period governs appeals from decisions or awards of Voluntary Arbitrators or Panels of Voluntary Arbitrators: the 15-day period under Section 4, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court for petition for review, or the 10-day period under Article 276 (formerly Article 262-A) of the Labor Code?
- Whether the Court of Appeals (CA) gravely abused its discretion in denying petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the Voluntary Arbitrator’s decision had become final and executory under Article 276, thereby depriving the CA of jurisdiction.
Antecedent Facts — Tuition Increase, Retirement Funding, and Union Challenge
- Under Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 6728 (Government Assistance to Students and Teachers in Private Education Act), 70% of tuition fee increases is earmarked for payment of salaries, wages, allowances and other benefits of teaching and non-teaching personnel.
- Petitioner Guagua National Colleges (GNC) imposed a 7% tuition fee increase for school year 2006–2007.
- GNC’s Board of Trustees approved funding the retirement program out of the 70% net incremental proceeds from the tuition increase to preserve the college’s Retirement Plan funds.
- Respondents (GNC-Faculty Labor Union and GNC Non-Teaching Maintenance Labor Union) challenged the unilateral decision, asserting it violated Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 6728.
- Parties submitted the dispute to voluntary arbitration after failing to settle the controversy themselves.
Decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator
- Voluntary Arbitrator Froilan M. Bacungan rendered a decision dated June 16, 2008, in favor of GNC.
- The arbitrator held that retirement benefits were “other benefits” chargeable against the 70% net incremental proceeds pursuant to Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 6728.
- Respondents received a copy of the decision on June 16, 2008.
Respondents’ Procedural Steps Post-Decision
- Respondents filed an Urgent Motion for Extension seeking a 15-day extension from July 1, 2008 until July 16, 2008 within which to file a petition for review.
- On July 2, 2008, the Court of Appeals issued a resolution granting the Urgent Motion for Extension.
- Respondents filed their petition for review with the CA on July 16, 2008.
Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss and CA Resolution
- Petitioner GNC filed a Motion to Dismiss, asserting the Voluntary Arbitrator’s decision had become final and executory under Article 276 of the Labor Code and citing Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. Sales Force Union-PTGWO-Balais v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. as authority for the 10-day finality rule.
- The CA denied GNC’s Motion to Dismiss in a resolution promulgated December 15, 2008.
- GNC’s motion for reconsideration of the CA resolution was denied on January 30, 2009.
- Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court contesting the CA’s denial of its Motion to Dismiss.
Petitioner’s Principal Contentions
- The CA acted without or in excess of jurisdiction by denying the Motion to Dismiss because the Voluntary Arbitrator’s decision had become final and executory after ten (10) days pursuant to Article 276 of the Labor Code and the Coca-Cola Bottlers ruling.
- Consequently, the CA lacked appellate jurisdiction to entertain the petition for review.
- The CA’s reliance on precedents such as Manila Midtown Hotel v. Borromeo and Leyte IV Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. LEYECO IV Employees Union-ALU was misplaced because those rulings did not definitively set the reglementary period.
- The CA misapplied equitable rules and the liberal construction in favor of labor without strong or compelling reasons to suspend procedural rules.
- Petitioner asserted the need to harmonize Rule 43 (15 days) with Article 276 (10 days), arguing that unless Congress amends Article 276, the 10-day period should control.
Respondents’ Principal Contentions
- Respondents maintained they had a meritorious case concerning the interpretation of Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 6728.
- The CA did not abuse its discretion because of the rule on liberal application of procedural rules to secure substantial justice and the policy of liberal construction in favor of labor.
- A long line of jurisprudence supports the remedy of petition for review under Rule 43 as the appropriate vehicle to challenge Voluntary Arbitrator decisions.
- Respondents relied on precedent recognizing a 15-day reglementary period under Rule 43 in many cases.
Issue Framed for Resolution
- Did the Court of Appeals gravely abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss despite the alleged finality of the Voluntary Arbitrator’s decision under Article 276 of the Labor Code?
Supreme Court’s Disposition
- The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari as unmeritorious.
- The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ December 15, 2008 resolution denying the Motion to Dismiss.
- The Court directed the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) to revise or amend Section 7 of Rule VII of the Revised Procedural Guidelines in the Conduct of V