G.R. No. 148303 ; October 17, 2002
Union of Nestle Workers Cagayan de Oro Factory (UNWCF), represented by its President Yuri P. Bertulfo and officers, petitioners, vs. Nestle Philippines, Inc., represented by its President Juan B. Santos, Rudy P. Trillanes, Factory Manager, Cagayan de Oro City Branch and Francis L. Lacson, Cagayan de Oro City Human Resources Manager, respondents.

FACTS

On August 1, 1999, respondent Nestle Philippines, Inc. adopted a “Drug Abuse Policy” (Policy No. HRM 1.8) mandating drug tests for all employees. Implementation began on August 17, 1999, at various factories. At the Cagayan de Oro factory, only 141 out of 496 employees complied. Petitioners, the union and its officers, challenged the policy’s implementation in a letter dated August 20, 1999, branding it a subterfuge against constitutional rights. Nestle defended the policy as part of the government’s anti-drug abuse thrust and as an exercise of its right to ensure employee health and safety. On August 23, 1999, petitioners filed a complaint for injunction with a prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cagayan de Oro City. The RTC issued a TRO on August 24, 1999, but later dismissed the complaint on September 8, 1999, for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that the core issue was a labor dispute involving the implementation of a company personnel policy, not purely constitutional questions. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. They then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court, which referred it to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on December 28, 2000, ruling that the proper remedy against the RTC’s final order was an appeal, not certiorari, and that the petition had become moot and academic as the drug testing had already been consummated. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over petitioners’ suit for injunction.
2. Whether petitioners’ resort to certiorari under Rule 65 is in order.

RULING

1. No, the Regional Trial Court does not have jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint. Petitioners’ amended complaint alleged that the Drug Abuse Policy was implemented without employee consultation, was punitive (imposing suspension and dismissal for refusal), and was implemented arbitrarily. The Supreme Court held that these allegations assail the manner of implementation of a company personnel policy. The Drug Abuse Policy was characterized as a company personnel policy, defined as guiding principles expressing organizational philosophy regarding personnel matters affecting employee efficiency and well-being. Under Article 261 of the Labor Code, as amended, the Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators has original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies. Therefore, the RTC correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
2. No, petitioners’ resort to certiorari under Rule 65 was not in order. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling that the proper remedy against the RTC’s final order of dismissal was an appeal, not a petition for certiorari. Certiorari is not a substitute for an appeal. For certiorari to prosper, there must be no appeal nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. An appeal was available to petitioners, but they did not resort to it. No exceptional circumstances justified their availment of certiorari instead of appeal.
The petition for review on certiorari was DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals were AFFIRMED.