Apalisok vs. Radio Philippines Network Radio Station DYKC and Station Manager George Suazo

Under Article 262 of the Labor Code, a voluntary arbitrator has jurisdiction over a labor dispute when the parties agree to submit it to voluntary arbitration; such agreement may be embodied in a Submission Agreement signed by their respective counsels, and a party's waiver of the CBA grievance machinery does not negate that jurisdiction.

Petitioner Marilou Guanzon Apalisok was employed as Production Chief of Radio Philippines Network (RPN) Station DYKC, where respondent George Suazo served as Station Manager. A Collective Bargaining Agreement between RPN and its employees provided for a grievance machinery. Article 262 of the Labor Code, as amended, governs the jurisdiction of voluntary arbitrators over labor disputes upon agreement of the parties.

Petitioner Marilou Guanzon Apalisok was the Production Chief of Radio Philippines Network (RPN) Station DYKC. On May 15, 1995, she received a memorandum from Branches Operations Manager Gilito Datoc asking her to submit a written explanation why no disciplinary action should be taken against her for performance of acts hostile to RPN and for arrogant, disrespectful, and defiant behavior toward her superior, Station Manager George Suazo. She submitted her Answer on May 16, 1995.

On May 31, 1995, petitioner received another memorandum from the Administrative Manager of RPN informing her of the termination of her services effective the close of regular office hours of June 15, 1995. By letter of June 5, 1995, petitioner informed RPN of her decision to waive her right to resolve her case through the grievance machinery of RPN as provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement and to lodge her case before the proper government forum.

Thereafter, petitioner filed a complaint against RPN DYKC and Suazo for illegal dismissal before the National Labor Relations Commission, Regional Arbitration Branch of Region 7, which referred it to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board. On June 20, 1995, the parties, through their respective counsels, signed a Submission Agreement submitting for voluntary arbitration the issue of whether petitioner's dismissal was valid and agreeing to abide by the voluntary arbitrator's decision.

In her position paper, petitioner prayed that her dismissal be declared invalid and that she be awarded separation pay, backwages, and other benefits granted to her by the Labor Code since reinstatement was no longer feasible due to strained relations. She also prayed for P2,000,000.00 moral damages and P500,000.00 exemplary damages. Respondents prayed for dismissal of the complaint, arguing that the voluntary arbitrator had no jurisdiction over the case and that, assuming jurisdiction, the complaint was dismissible for lack of merit because petitioner was not illegally dismissed.

On October 18, 1995, the voluntary arbitrator rendered an Award in favor of petitioner. The voluntary arbitrator ruled that the dismissal of complainant was invalid but, considering reinstatement impractical because of proven strained relations between the parties, ordered respondents to pay petitioner P411,126.76, itemized as P138,700.95 separation pay, P88,817.00 backwages, P100,000.00 moral and exemplary damages, P46,233.65 service incentive leaves, and P37,375.16 attorney's fees, with all other claims denied. Respondents' motion for reconsideration was denied by Order of November 21, 1995.

• Jurisdiction: Petitioner argued that Article 262 of the Labor Code provides that, upon agreement of the parties, the voluntary arbitrator shall hear and decide all other labor disputes; her option not to subject the dispute to RPN's grievance machinery did not amount to relinquishing her right to voluntary arbitration because she and respondents freely executed a Submission Agreement submitting the dispute to a voluntary arbitrator.
• Estoppel: Petitioner contended that even assuming the voluntary arbitrator had no jurisdiction over the case, settled jurisprudence does not allow a losing party to question the authority of the voluntary arbitrator after it had freely submitted itself to that authority.

• Jurisdiction: Respondents argued that the voluntary arbitrator had no jurisdiction over the case.
• Lack of Merit: Respondents argued that, assuming the voluntary arbitrator had jurisdiction, the complaint should be dismissed for lack of merit because petitioner was not illegally dismissed.

• Jurisdiction of the Voluntary Arbitrator: Whether the voluntary arbitrator had jurisdiction over petitioner's complaint.
• Estoppel: Whether respondents are guilty of estoppel.

• Jurisdiction of the Voluntary Arbitrator: Yes. Article 262 of the Labor Code provides that, upon agreement of the parties, the voluntary arbitrator shall hear and decide all other labor disputes. The parties' Submission Agreement, signed by their respective counsels, submitted the validity of petitioner's dismissal to voluntary arbitration.
• Estoppel: Not reached. Because the voluntary arbitrator had jurisdiction over the parties' controversy, discussion of the second issue was no longer necessary.

• Jurisdiction of the Voluntary Arbitrator: Article 262 of the Labor Code provides that, upon agreement of the parties, the voluntary arbitrator can hear and decide all other labor disputes. Contrary to the finding of the Court of Appeals, voluntary arbitration as a mode of settling the dispute was not forced upon respondents. Both parties agreed to submit the issue of the validity of petitioner's dismissal to the jurisdiction of the voluntary arbitrator through a Submission Agreement duly signed by their respective counsels. That agreement satisfied Article 262 and conferred jurisdiction on the voluntary arbitrator. The Court of Appeals' conclusion that petitioner's waiver of the CBA grievance machinery deprived the voluntary arbitrator of jurisdiction was thus rejected; the waiver did not prevent the parties from later agreeing to voluntary arbitration. Because jurisdiction existed, the voluntary arbitration Award was reinstated.
• Estoppel: The Court stated that because the voluntary arbitrator had jurisdiction over the parties' controversy, discussion of the second issue was no longer necessary. No ruling on estoppel was made.

• Voluntary Arbitrator Jurisdiction Upon Agreement of the Parties — Under Article 262 of the Labor Code, as amended, the voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators, upon agreement of the parties, shall hear and decide all other labor disputes, including unfair labor practices and bargaining deadlocks. Jurisdiction is not forced upon a party; it arises from the parties' agreement. In this case, the Submission Agreement signed by the parties' respective counsels constituted that agreement, so the voluntary arbitrator had jurisdiction over the validity of petitioner's dismissal.
• Waiver of Grievance Machinery Does Not Preclude Voluntary Arbitration — The Court rejected the Court of Appeals' ruling that petitioner's option not to submit the dispute to the CBA grievance machinery was tantamount to relinquishing her right to voluntary arbitration. The controlling fact was the parties' subsequent Submission Agreement, which supplied the agreement required by Article 262 and conferred jurisdiction on the voluntary arbitrator. A party's bypass of the contractual grievance procedure does not, by itself, strip a voluntary arbitrator of jurisdiction when the parties later agree to submit the dispute to voluntary arbitration.

• "The Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, upon agreement of the parties, shall hear and decide all other labor disputes including unfair labor practices and bargaining deadlocks." — This is the text of Article 262 as quoted in the decision; it is the statutory basis for the voluntary arbitrator's jurisdiction.
• "Contrary to the finding of the Court of Appeals, voluntary arbitration as a mode of settling the dispute was not forced upon respondents. Both parties indeed agreed to submit the issue of validity of the dismissal of petitioner to the jurisdiction of the voluntary arbitrator by the Submission Agreement duly signed by their respective counsels." — This passage states the ratio decidendi: the parties' Submission Agreement satisfied Article 262 and conferred jurisdiction.
• "As the voluntary arbitrator had jurisdiction over the parties' controversy, discussion of the second issue is no longer necessary." — This shows the Court did not reach the estoppel issue after resolving jurisdiction.
• "WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals Decision of October 30, 1998 is hereby SET ASIDE and the voluntary arbitration Award of October 18, 1995 is hereby REINSTATED." — This is the dispositive portion, reinstating the voluntary arbitration award.

• Luzon Development Bank vs. Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees, et al., G.R. No. 120319, October 6, 1995 — Cited by the Supreme Court when it referred G.R. No. 122841 to the Court of Appeals; the case holds that decisions or awards of a voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators in labor cases are reviewable by the Court of Appeals. It is the procedural precedent that routed the respondents' certiorari petition to the Court of Appeals.

• Article 262, Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended — Provides that the voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators, upon agreement of the parties, shall hear and decide all other labor disputes including unfair labor practices and bargaining deadlocks. The Court applied it to hold that the Submission Agreement signed by the parties' counsels conferred jurisdiction on the voluntary arbitrator over the validity of petitioner's dismissal.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — The petitioner invoked this rule in filing the present petition for review on certiorari assailing the Court of Appeals Decision of October 30, 1998 and Resolution of February 26, 1999. The Court granted relief by setting aside the Court of Appeals decision and reinstating the arbitration award.

Puno and Panganiban, JJ., concurred. Sandoval-Gutierrez and Corona, JJ., were on leave.