G.R. No. 138094; May 29, 2003
MARILOU GUANZON APALISOK, petitioner, vs. RADIO PHILIPPINES NETWORK RADIO STATION DYKC and STATION MANAGER GEORGE SUAZO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Marilou Guanzon Apalisok, Production Chief of RPN Station DYKC, was dismissed from service on May 31, 1995, for alleged acts hostile to the company and disrespectful behavior towards her superior. She initially filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the National Labor Relations Commission. Subsequently, both parties, through their respective counsels, executed a Submission Agreement dated June 20, 1995, expressly agreeing to submit the issue of the validity of her dismissal to voluntary arbitration and to abide by the arbitrator’s decision.
The voluntary arbitrator ruled in favor of Apalisok, declaring her dismissal invalid and awarding her separation pay, backwages, damages, and other benefits. Respondents moved for reconsideration and, upon denial, filed a petition for certiorari. The Supreme Court referred the case to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court nullified the arbitration award, holding that the voluntary arbitrator lacked jurisdiction. It reasoned that Apalisok’s prior waiver of the grievance machinery under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) relinquished her right to voluntary arbitration, converting the grievance into a resolved matter.

ISSUE

Whether the voluntary arbitrator had jurisdiction over the complaint for illegal dismissal.

RULING

Yes, the voluntary arbitrator validly acquired jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals erred in its interpretation. Jurisdiction of a voluntary arbitrator is conferred primarily by the agreement of the parties, as expressly provided under Article 262 of the Labor Code, which states that the voluntary arbitrator shall hear and decide labor disputes “upon agreement of the parties.”
Contrary to the appellate court’s finding, Apalisok’s waiver of the CBA’s grievance procedure did not automatically strip the voluntary arbitrator of jurisdiction. The critical and determinative act was the subsequent execution of the Submission Agreement. This document constituted a clear, separate, and mutual consent by both parties to submit their dispute to voluntary arbitration. Respondents, having voluntarily entered into this agreement through counsel, cannot later repudiate the arbitrator’s authority after receiving an unfavorable award.
The Supreme Court reinstated the voluntary arbitrator’s decision, emphasizing that the parties’ agreement to arbitrate is the fundamental source of the arbitrator’s power. Since such an agreement existed, the award was valid and binding. The Court found it unnecessary to address the ancillary issue of estoppel.