G.R. No. 157775; October 19, 2007
LEYTE IV ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., Petitioner, vs. LEYECO IV Employees Union-ALU, Respondent.

FACTS

Leyte IV Electric Cooperative, Inc. (LEYECO IV) and the Leyeco IV Employees Union-ALU entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). A dispute arose regarding the interpretation of the CBA provision on holiday pay. The Union demanded payment for unreflected holiday pay from 1998 to 2000, while LEYECO IV insisted its 360-day divisor formula for computing daily rates already included payment for all holidays. The parties submitted the issue to voluntary arbitration. The Voluntary Arbitrator ruled in favor of the Union, ordering LEYECO IV to pay over one million pesos in unpaid holiday pay, finding that the payroll slips did not reflect specific holiday pay as mandated by the CBA.
LEYECO IV filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied. It received the denial on June 27, 2002. On July 27, 2002, it filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Voluntary Arbitrator. The CA dismissed the petition outright, ruling it was the wrong mode of appeal. The CA held that decisions of voluntary arbitrators are appealable via a petition for review under Rule 43, not certiorari under Rule 65. It noted LEYECO IV’s appeal under Rule 43 was filed out of time, as the 15-day period lapsed on July 12, 2002. LEYECO IV’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing LEYECO IV’s Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 for being an improper remedy to assail the Voluntary Arbitrator’s decision.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s dismissal. The proper remedy to appeal a decision of a voluntary arbitrator is a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, as explicitly provided by Section 1 of that rule. A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal. Rule 65 is available only when there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Since a petition for review under Rule 43 was the adequate remedy, and LEYECO IV allowed the period for filing it to lapse, it cannot resort to Rule 65. The Court emphasized that the availability of Rule 65 is limited to instances where the voluntary arbitrator acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Mere errors of judgment, which are correctable by appeal, are not within the scope of Rule 65. LEYECO IV’s arguments pertained to the arbitrator’s interpretation of facts and the CBA, constituting alleged errors of judgment, not jurisdictional errors warranting certiorari. The Court upheld strict adherence to procedural rules to ensure orderly administration of justice.