GR 121227; (August, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 121227 August 17, 1998
VICENTE SAN JOSE, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and OCEAN TERMINAL SERVICES, INC., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Vicente San Jose was hired as a stevedore in July 1980 and was advised to retire in April 1991 upon reaching 65 years old. He applied for retirement and was paid P3,156.39 as retirement pay. He filed a case for underpayment of retirement benefit (a money claim) before the Labor Arbiter, claiming his latest salary was P200 per day and seeking a differential. The respondent employer contested the claim, alleging his latest basic salary was P120.34 per day, that he worked on a rotation basis and not daily, and that he had signed a quitclaim. The Labor Arbiter decided in favor of San Jose, ordering the payment of a differential of P25,443.70, based on a presumption of a 26-day work month and accepting the petitioner’s salary claim due to the employer’s failure to present contrary proof like payrolls. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision on jurisdictional grounds, ruling that the claim arose from the interpretation or implementation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and thus fell under the jurisdiction of the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitrator, not the Labor Arbiter. The petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari directly without first filing a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC decision.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the Labor Arbiter had jurisdiction over petitioner’s money claim for underpayment of retirement benefits, or whether such claim, being based on the CBA, falls under the jurisdiction of the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitrator.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the NLRC was correct in holding that the Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction over the case. The claim involved an issue “arising from the interpretation or implementation” of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, specifically the provisions on compulsory retirement and the computation of retirement pay for casual employees/workers on rotation basis. Under Article 217(c) of the Labor Code, such cases should be disposed of by referring them to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitrator. However, the Court, in the interest of substantial justice and considering the seven-year delay since the claim was first presented in 1991, adopted the Labor Arbiter’s computation and ordered the respondent employer to pay the petitioner the additional amount of Twenty-Five Thousand Four Hundred Forty-Three Pesos and Seventy Centavos (P25,443.70). The Court also noted the procedural lapse of the petitioner in not filing a motion for reconsideration before the NLRC prior to the certiorari petition, but gave due course to the petition to clarify jurisdictional boundaries and render speedy justice.