San Jose vs. NLRC

A money claim that requires the interpretation or implementation of a collective bargaining agreement falls within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of a Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators under Article 261 of the Labor Code, not the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter’s jurisdiction under Article 217 covers claims arising from statutes or contracts other than a collective bargaining agreement.

Petitioner Vicente San Jose worked as a stevedore for respondent Ocean Terminal Services, Inc. starting in July 1980. In April 1991, at age 65, he was advised to retire and thereafter applied for retirement under the collective bargaining agreement between his union and the company. He received P3,156.39 as retirement pay, a sum he claimed was far below what the CBA entitled him to receive. The ensuing dispute over the correct computation of his retirement benefits required reference to the CBA’s retirement provision, which set the formula for length of service and salary basis for casual and rotation workers.

• Nature of Employment: Petitioner was hired in July 1980 as a stevedore by respondent Ocean Terminal Services, Inc. and worked continuously until April 1991, when, having reached 65 years of age, he was advised to retire.

• The CBA Retirement Provision: The collective bargaining agreement between petitioner’s union and respondent provided for compulsory retirement at age 60, with retirement pay equivalent to one-half (½) month salary for every year of service. For casual employees and workers on rotation basis, the agreement specified that 303 rotation calls or work days would be considered equivalent to one year of service, with the same ½-month salary multiplier.

• Retirement and Initial Payment: Petitioner applied for retirement and was paid P3,156.39. He thereafter contended that this amount was grossly inadequate under the CBA formula.

• Conflicting Versions: Petitioner alleged that his latest daily salary was P200.00, yielding a monthly salary of P5,200.00 based on 26 days of work per month. Respondent countered that petitioner’s latest daily salary was only P120.34, that he worked on a rotation basis and not seven days a week, that he did not actually render 11 years of continuous service, and that he voluntarily signed a quitclaim and waited two years before filing a complaint.

• Labor Arbiter’s Factual Findings: The Labor Arbiter rejected respondent’s computation of length of service based on Employees’ Compensation Commission contribution records. The Arbiter noted that respondent failed to present daily time records, payrolls, or vouchers — documents employers are duty-bound to keep. Because of this failure, the Arbiter sustained petitioner’s assertions of a P200.00 daily wage and 26 working days per month over 11 years of service, yielding a differential of P25,443.70.

• Timeliness of Appeal and Appeal Bond: Petitioner argued that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in giving due course to respondent’s appeal because it was filed out of time and no showing was made that a surety bond had been posted.

• No CBA Interpretation Involved: Petitioner maintained that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction, as the issue did not involve any provision of the collective bargaining agreement.

• Timely Appeal and Proper Bond: Respondents countered that the appeal was filed within the reglementary period because the tenth day fell on a Saturday, and under the NLRC Rules the last day to perfect an appeal is the next working day; a surety bond in the amount of P25,443.70 had been issued by BF General Insurance Company, Inc.

• Exclusive Jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrator: Respondents argued that petitioner’s claim for separation pay differential was based squarely on the CBA provision on compulsory retirement, making it a case arising from the interpretation or implementation of a collective bargaining agreement. Consequently, under Article 217(c) of the Labor Code, the Labor Arbiter should have dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction and referred it to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitrator.

• Timeliness of Appeal and Filing of Bond: Whether the appeal to the NLRC was perfected within the reglementary period and whether the required appeal bond was posted.

• Jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter: Whether the Labor Arbiter had original and exclusive jurisdiction over petitioner’s claim for underpayment of retirement benefits, considering the claim involved the interpretation or implementation of a collective bargaining agreement.

• Timeliness of Appeal and Filing of Bond: The appeal was timely filed. Under the NLRC Rules, when the tenth day to appeal falls on a Saturday, the last day to perfect the appeal is the next working day. Respondent received the Labor Arbiter’s decision on January 19, 1994, and filed its appeal on February 14, 1994, which was a Monday after the Saturday deadline. The required appeal bond of P25,443.70 was duly posted.

• Jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter: The Labor Arbiter lacked jurisdiction. A wholistic reading of Articles 217, 261, and 262 of the Labor Code establishes that cases arising from the interpretation or implementation of a collective bargaining agreement are within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of a Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, not the Labor Arbiter. The introductory clause of Article 217(a) — “Except as otherwise provided under this Code” — refers to the exceptions in Article 217(c) and Article 262. The Labor Arbiter’s jurisdiction over money claims under Article 217 is limited to those arising from statutes or contracts other than a collective bargaining agreement. Because petitioner’s retirement benefit claim required the interpretation or implementation of the CBA’s retirement provision, the exclusive jurisdiction lay with the Voluntary Arbitrator under Article 261.

• Merits: To avoid further delay and a denial of speedy justice to an aged retiree, the Court resolved the merits. The computation formula and factual findings of the Labor Arbiter were adopted. Respondent’s failure to keep and present employment records (payrolls, daily time records, vouchers) justified sustaining petitioner’s claim regarding his daily wage and length of service. Consequently, respondent was ordered to pay petitioner the additional amount of P25,443.70.

• Jurisdiction over claims arising from the interpretation or implementation of a CBA — The Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators has original and exclusive jurisdiction over all unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of a collective bargaining agreement and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies, pursuant to Article 261 of the Labor Code. The Labor Arbiter’s jurisdiction under Article 217 is qualified by the exception in Article 217(c); money claims under Article 217 are limited to those arising from statutes or contracts other than a CBA. A Voluntary Arbitrator may additionally acquire jurisdiction over other labor disputes, including those enumerated in Article 217, if the parties voluntarily confer such jurisdiction under Article 262.

• Employer’s duty to keep employment records — Employers are required to maintain payrolls and daily time records under the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. Failure to present these records when required justifies adopting the employee’s assertions regarding length of service and salary. An employer who fails to discharge this burden must suffer the consequences of such omission.

• “The original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter under Article 217 (c), for money claims is limited only to those arising from statutes or contracts other than a Collective Bargaining Agreement. The Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators will have original and exclusive jurisdiction over money claims ‘arising from the interpretation or implementation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies’, under Article 261.”

• “Labor Arbiters should exert all efforts to cite statutory provisions and/or judicial decisions to buttress their dispositions. An Arbiter cannot rely on simplistic statements, generalizations, and assumptions. These are not substitutes for reasoned judgment.”

• “The filing of such motion [for reconsideration] is intended to afford public respondent an opportunity to correct any actual or fancied error attributed to it by way of a re-examination of the legal and factual aspects of the case. Petitioner’s inaction or negligence under the circumstances is tantamount to a deprivation of the right and opportunity of the respondent commission to cleanse itself of an error unwittingly committed or to vindicate itself of an act unfairly imputed.”

• Corazon Jamer v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 112630, September 5, 1997 — Followed. The Court reiterated the requirement that a motion for reconsideration be filed before resorting to certiorari under Rule 65.

• Building Care Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission (date not specified) — Cited within Jamer for the principle that a motion for reconsideration is an adequate remedy that must be exhausted before certiorari can lie.

• Juan Saballa, et al. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 102472-84, August 22, 1996 — Cited for the constitutional mandate that decisions must clearly and distinctly state the facts and law on which they are based; used to critique the Labor Arbiter’s reasoning.

• South Motorists Enterprises v. Tosoc, 181 SCRA 386 (1990) — Applied. An employer who fails to present employment records despite the opportunity to do so must bear the adverse consequences.

• Article 217, Labor Code — Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters; the exception in paragraph (c) that cases arising from the interpretation or implementation of a CBA shall be referred to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitrator. The phrase “Except as otherwise provided under this Code” in Article 217(a) was interpreted to refer to Article 217(c) and Article 262.

• Article 261, Labor Code — Original and exclusive jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators over grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of a CBA and from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies.

• Article 262, Labor Code — Jurisdiction over other labor disputes, which may be conferred on a Voluntary Arbitrator by agreement of the parties.

• Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, Book III, Rule X, Sections 6, 7, 8, 1, and 12 — Requirements for employers to keep payrolls, daily time records, and other employment records; relied upon to shift the burden to the employer on wage and length-of-service issues.

• NLRC Rules of Procedure, Resolution No. 11-01-91, Rule VI, Section 1 — Provides that if the tenth day to appeal falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday, the last day to perfect the appeal is the next working day.

Chief Justice Narvasa, Justice Romero, and Justice Kapunan concurred.