GR 149050; (March, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 149050 March 25, 2009
SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA HYATT – NUWHRAIN-APL, Petitioner, vs. VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR FROILAN M. BACUNGAN and HYATT REGENCY MANILA, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Hyatt-NUWHRAIN-APL, a union of rank-and-file employees of respondent Hyatt Regency Manila, questioned the employment status of Mario Dacles, Teodoro Valencia, Amelia Dalmacio, and Renato Dazo. Dacles and Valencia worked as glass cleaners pursuant to a cleaning service contract between Hyatt and City Service Corporation (CSC). Dalmacio and Dazo were hired by Hyatt on a casual basis as florist/sales clerk and helper/driver, respectively, and later signed another employment contract. The parties submitted the dispute to voluntary arbitration. The voluntary arbitrator ruled that Dacles and Valencia were employees of CSC, not Hyatt, and that Dalmacio and Dazo were project employees of Hyatt whose employment was co-terminous with the flower shop’s operation. Petitioner union filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals to assail the arbitrator’s decision. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, ruling it was the wrong remedy (a petition for review under Rule 43 should have been filed) and was filed out of time. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grievous error in ruling that the appropriate remedy for assailing the decision of the voluntary arbitrator is an appeal by petition for review under Rule 43 and not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, and in dismissing the petition based on the requirements of Rule 43.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the resolutions of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the proper remedy to assail a decision of a voluntary arbitrator is a petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as settled in Luzon Development Bank v. Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees and reiterated in subsequent cases. The Court explained that while Section 2 of Rule 43 exempts judgments under the Labor Code, this does not cover decisions of voluntary arbitrators, as their decisions are appealable to the Court of Appeals to provide a uniform appellate procedure. The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari as it was an erroneous substitute for a lost appeal, which was filed beyond the reglementary period. Furthermore, the Supreme Court affirmed the factual findings of the voluntary arbitrator, noting the absence of grave abuse of discretion. It upheld the ruling that Dacles and Valencia were employees of the independent contractor CSC, and that Dalmacio and Dazo were project employees.