G.R. No. 108001 . March 15, 1996.
SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, ANGEL G. ROA and MELINDA MACARAIG, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (Second Division), LABOR ARBITER EDUARDO J. CARPIO, ILAW AT BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA (IBM), ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner San Miguel Corporation (SMC) served a memorandum on July 31, 1990, informing private respondents, who were union officers and members, of their impending separation effective October 31, 1990, on the ground of redundancy. The respondent union opposed this and engaged in dialogues with management. However, on October 1, 1990, before concluding these dialogues, SMC issued another memorandum setting the dismissal for November 2, 1990, which was subsequently effected. The union then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice with damages before the Labor Arbiter.
Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the Labor Arbiter lacked jurisdiction. They contended that the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) contained a provision for grievance and arbitration to settle disputes concerning “employer-employee relations.” They asserted that the union’s act of seeking reconsideration of the termination meant the dispute was grievable under the CBA’s job security clause, requiring exhaustion of the contractual grievance procedure before resorting to the Labor Arbiter.

ISSUE

Whether the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction over the complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice, or whether the parties must first exhaust the grievance and arbitration procedure stipulated in their Collective Bargaining Agreement.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the Labor Arbiter properly has jurisdiction. The legal logic is anchored on Article 217(a) of the Labor Code, which grants Labor Arbiters original and exclusive jurisdiction over termination disputes and unfair labor practice cases. This statutory jurisdiction is deemed written into every CBA. The exception under Article 262, which allows voluntary arbitrators to hear such cases, applies only “upon agreement of the parties.” The Court meticulously examined the CBA and found no express agreement stating that termination disputes and unfair labor practices were specifically submitted to voluntary arbitration. The general CBA clause referring to arbitration for “employer-employee relations” is insufficient to constitute such an express agreement. Furthermore, jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint, which clearly raised claims under Article 217(a). While promoting voluntary dispute settlement is state policy, jurisdiction cannot be appropriated by a tribunal without legal conferment. Thus, absent a clear agreement to the contrary, the Labor Arbiter’s jurisdiction is compulsory. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.