GR 138938; (October, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 138938 ; October 24, 2000
CELESTINO VIVIERO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HAMMONIA MARINE SERVICES, and HANSEATIC SHIPPING CO., LTD., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Celestino Vivero, a licensed seaman and member of the Associated Marine Officers and Seamen’s Union of the Philippines (AMOSUP), was hired as Chief Officer by private respondents. He was repatriated on July 15, 1994, on grounds of poor performance and insubordination. On August 1, 1994, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with AMOSUP. Grievance proceedings were conducted pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), but the dispute remained unresolved. Consequently, on November 28, 1994, Vivero filed a complaint with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). The case was later transferred to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) upon the enactment of Republic Act No. 8042 .
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that under the CBA, unresolved grievances must be referred to voluntary arbitration. The NLRC reversed this, holding that Vivero had exhausted the grievance procedure and could seek relief from the Labor Arbiter. The Court of Appeals then reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s dismissal, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the CBA’s voluntary arbitration clause.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner Vivero’s failure to refer the unresolved grievance to voluntary arbitration, as stipulated in the CBA, deprives the Labor Arbiter of jurisdiction over his illegal dismissal complaint.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that contractual grievance procedures, including voluntary arbitration, are designed to foster industrial peace and are generally compulsory. However, the Court found that the failure to proceed to voluntary arbitration was not attributable to Vivero. The CBA required that the UNION and the COMPANY jointly select an impartial arbitrator if the Grievance Committee failed to resolve the dispute. The record showed that neither AMOSUP nor the respondent companies took steps to convene the Voluntary Arbitration Committee after the grievance proceedings deadlocked.
Consequently, Vivero should not be penalized for the inaction of the parties responsible for initiating the next step. His filing of the complaint with the POEA was a legitimate recourse under the circumstances. The Court emphasized that while voluntary arbitration is favored, its implementation must not be rendered nugatory by the refusal of a party to abide by the procedure. Therefore, jurisdiction properly vested with the Labor Arbiter, and the case was remanded for resolution on the merits. The decision underscores that access to judicial or quasi-judicial forums cannot be barred when the agreed pre-condition for arbitration is thwarted by the inaction of the other contracting parties.