G.R. No. 92432 February 23, 1995
T/SGT ALDORA LARKINS, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, HON. IRINEO BERNARDO, DANIEL HERRERA, MARIETTA DE GUZMAN, JOSELITO CATACUTAN, JOSEPH GALANG, ROBERTO HERRERA, DELPIN PECSON, CARLOS CORTEZ, JAIME CORTEZ, ARSENIO DIAZ, ROBERTO SAGAD and MARCELO LOZANO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Aldora Larkins was a member of the United States Air Force (USAF) assigned to oversee dormitories at Clark Air Base. On August 10, 1988, the Third Aircraft Generation Squadron (3 AGS) terminated its contract with De Guzman Custodial Services. The employees of that service, including private respondents, were allowed to continue working temporarily, but the new contractor, JAC Maintenance Services, chose to bring its own workers. Consequently, the workers were asked to surrender their base passes. On August 12, 1988, private respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and underpayment of wages against petitioner, Lt. Col. Frankhauser, and the new contractor before the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch. The Labor Arbiter later dropped the contractor as a party. Petitioner and Lt. Col. Frankhauser failed to answer the complaint, appear at hearings, or submit a position paper. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on November 21, 1988, finding them guilty of illegal dismissal and ordering reinstatement with back wages or separation pay. Petitioner appealed to the NLRC, arguing that the Labor Arbiter never acquired jurisdiction over her person because no summons or copies of the complaints were served on her in accordance with the R.P.-U.S. Military Bases Agreement of 1947. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision on August 31, 1989, but noted that the real party respondent was the United States Government and any execution should be subject to existing international agreements. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on February 5, 1990.

ISSUE

Whether the Labor Arbiter acquired jurisdiction over the person of petitioner, given the alleged lack of proper service of summons in accordance with the R.P.-U.S. Military Bases Agreement.

RULING

No. The petition for certiorari is GRANTED. The Labor Arbiter did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of petitioner. Article XIV of the R.P.-U.S. Military Bases Agreement requires that any process be served within a base only with the permission of the commanding officer, and if permission is refused, the commanding officer must arrange for service and provide proof thereof. The Labor Arbiter did not follow this procedure; instead, summons was addressed to Lt. Col. Frankhauser, not the Base Commander. Notices of hearing are not equivalent to summons. Without valid service of summons, the proceedings and judgment are null and void. Petitioner’s participation in the NLRC appeal did not constitute a waiver, as it was precisely to contest jurisdiction. Furthermore, even assuming waiver, the case could not prosper because the employer of private respondents was the United States Government, not petitioner or Lt. Col. Frankhauser personally. Disputes involving Filipino employees of the U.S. military bases are governed by the Base Labor Agreement and related memoranda, providing for specific grievance and arbitration procedures, not the NLRC. Therefore, the Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction over the case, and the judgment is void.