G.R. No. 171213 February 17, 2010
PNCC SKYWAY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND SECURITY DIVISION WORKERS ORGANIZATION (PSTMSDWO), represented by its President, RENE SORIANO, Petitioner, vs. PNCC SKYWAY CORPORATION, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner PNCC Skyway Corporation Traffic Management and Security Division Workers’ Organization (PSTMSDWO) is a registered labor union, and respondent PNCC Skyway Corporation is a corporation. They entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) on November 15, 2002. Pertinent CBA provisions include Article VIII, Section 1, which grants vacation leave with pay and states, “The company shall schedule the vacation leave of employees during the year taking into consideration the request of preference of the employees,” and that unused leave shall be converted to cash and paid in December. Article XXI, Section 6 states that expenses for securing/renewing security guard licenses shall be for the employees’ personal account.
Respondent’s Head of the Traffic Management and Security Department issued a memorandum scheduling the vacation leave of all TMSD personnel for 2004. Petitioner objected, claiming the unilateral scheduling was to avoid monetizing unused leave in December 2004, as suggested in another internal memo targeting “zero conversion” by December 2004. Petitioner also demanded that respondent shoulder the expenses for the in-service training required for security guard license renewal.
The dispute was elevated to the DOLE-NCMB and then to a voluntary arbitrator. The voluntary arbitrator ruled in favor of petitioner, declaring that (a) scheduling of vacation leaves shall be under the discretion of the union members, and management must convert to cash the leaves it compelled them to use, and (b) expenses for the in-service training for license renewal shall be borne by the company, not the employees.
Respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA annulled the voluntary arbitrator’s decision, ruling that the CBA provisions were clear and the arbitrator had no authority to interpret them beyond what was expressly written. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. Hence, this petition.
Respondent raised a technical objection, alleging the petition was defective due to lack of authority of union president Rene Soriano to sign the certification and verification against forum shopping at the time of filing. Petitioner countered that a subsequent Board Resolution dated June 30, 2006, reiterated authority granted as early as October 2005.

ISSUE

1. Whether the union president had sufficient authority to sign the verification and certification against forum shopping.
2. Whether the management has the sole discretion to schedule the vacation leave of the employees under the CBA.
3. Whether the management is liable for the expenses of the in-service training required for the renewal of the security guards’ licenses.
4. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not addressing the conversion to cash of unused vacation leave.

RULING

1. On the technical objection: The Supreme Court ruled that Rene Soriano had sufficient authority to sign the verification and certification against forum shopping. The requirement of verification is formal, not jurisdictional. The certification against forum shopping, while obligatory, is also not jurisdictional and can be relaxed under the rule of substantial compliance. The Board Resolution dated June 30, 2006, was a reiteration of authority previously granted in October 2005 to file the petition. As union president, Soriano was in a position to verify the truthfulness of the allegations.
2. On the scheduling of vacation leave: The Supreme Court ruled that under the clear terms of the CBA, the company has the prerogative to schedule the vacation leave of employees. Article VIII, Section 1(b) of the CBA explicitly states, “The company shall schedule the vacation leave of employees during the year taking into consideration the request of preference of the employees.” This grants the company the discretion to schedule, albeit with the duty to consider employee preferences. The company’s memoranda scheduling leave and aiming for “zero conversion” were valid exercises of management prerogative to ensure business continuity and operational efficiency. The voluntary arbitrator’s decision altering this clear stipulation constituted grave abuse of discretion.
3. On the expenses for in-service training: The Supreme Court ruled that the company is not liable for these expenses. Article XXI, Section 6 of the CBA clearly states, “All expenses of security guard in securing/renewing their licenses shall be for their personal account.” The in-service training is a prerequisite for license renewal under PNP rules. Since the CBA expressly allocates renewal expenses to the employees, the cost of the required training is included. The voluntary arbitrator’s decision contravened the clear stipulation of the CBA.
4. On the conversion of unused leave: The Supreme Court found that the CA did not err. The issue of conversion was dependent on the primary issue of scheduling. Since the company acted within its rights under the CBA in scheduling the leave, the consequent reduction or elimination of unused leave available for monetization was valid. The claim for conversion was therefore without merit.
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals.