Del Monte v. Saldivar (Ktle) Bargaining Agreement.

The Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary

G.R. No. 158620 October 11, 2006| TINGA, J.| Due Process Arbitrators will have original and exclusive jurisdiction over money claims
arising from the interpretation or implementation of the Collective Bargaining
PETITIONER: DEL MONTE PHILIPPINES, INC. and WARFREDO C. Agreement and, those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of
BALANDRA, petitioners company personnel policies‘, under Article 261. Thus, the Labor Arbiter in the
RESPONDENTS: MARIANO SALDIVAR, NENA TIMBAL, VIRGINIO instant case could not properly pass judgment on the cross-claim is further
VICERA, ALFREDO AMONCIO and NAZARIO S. COLASTE, respondents. strengthened by the fact that Del Monte and ALU expressly recognized the
jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators in the CBA.
Summary:
Associated Labor Union (ALU) is the exclusive bargaining agent of plantation Facts of the Case:
workers of petitioner Del Monte Philippines, Inc. (Del Monte) in Bukidnon - 1. See Summary (that’s it na talaga
Respondent Nena Timbal was a rank-and-file employee of Del Monte and also a
member of ALU - Del Monte and ALU entered into a CBA o Section 5 of the Issue/s of the case:
CBA stipulated that "ALU assumes full responsibility of any such termination 1. Whether the CA erred when it did not rule on Del Monte's claim for
of any member of the bargaining unit who loses his membership in ALU and reimbursement against ALU? NO
agrees to hold Del Monte free from any liability by judgment of a competent 2. WoN the Labor Arbiter could properly pass judgment on the cross-claim- NO
authority for claims arising out of dismissals made upon demand of ALU, and
latter shall reimburse the former of such sums as it shall have paid therefore.1 RULING: WHEREFORE, the Court hereby DECLARES that the final
Timbal, along with four other employees (collectively, co-employees), were determination of just compensation is a judicial function; that the jurisdiction of the
charged by ALU for disloyalty to the union (for encouraging defections to a Regional Trial Court, sitting as Special Agrarian Court, is original and exclusive, not
rival union, NFL). They allegedly attended seminars. Disloyalty Board >>> appellate; that the action to file judicial determination of just compensation shall be
Affidavit of Artajo (turns out there is bad blood between Artajo and Timbal) ten (10) years from the time of the taking; and that at the time of the filing of judicial
>>> Disloyalty Board nonetheless recommended the expulsion of Timbal from determination, there should be no pending administrative action for the
membership in ALU, and likewise her dismissal from Del Monte in accordance determination of just compensation.
with the Union Security Clause in the existing CBA >>> ALU Regional VP
adopted recommendations >>> ALU President affirmed the expulsion Del As to the just compensation, the September 18, 2009 Decision of the Court of
Monte terminated Timbal and her co-employees, noting that the termination was Appeals decreeing payment of P2,639,557.00 as the value of the subject property is
"upon demand of ALU - Timbal and her co-employees filed separate complaints SET ASIDE. Let the case be remanded to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5,
against Del Monte and/or its Personnel Manager Warfredo C. Balandra and Butuan City, sitting as Special Agrarian Court, for purposes of computing just
ALU with the Regional Arbitration Branch (RAB) of the National Labor compensation in accordance with JMC No. 11 (2003) and this disposition.
Relations Commission (NLRC) for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice and
damages. o The Labor Arbiter affirmed that all five were illegally dismissed and The amount shall earn legal interest from the time of taking at the rate of twelve
ordered Del Monte to reinstate complainants, to their former positions and to percent (12%) per annum until June 30, 2013. Thereafter, the rate shall be six percent
pay their full backwages and other allowances >>> NLRC: all validly dismissed (6%) per annum until fully paid.
>>> CA: all, except Timbal, validly dismissed - Before the Labor Arbiter, Del
Monte presented its cross-claim against ALU for reimbursement should it be RATIO:
made liable for illegal dismissal or unfair labor practice pursuant to the union 1. Before the Labor Arbiter, Del Monte had presented its cross-claim against ALU
security clause. - LA ruled that it cannot validly entertain the cross-claims of for reimbursement should it be made liable for illegal dismissal or unfair labor
respondent DMPI and Tabusuares against the respondent ALU-TUCP because practice, pursuant to the CBA. The Labor Arbiter had actually passed upon this claim
of the absence of employer-employee relationship between the two . for reimbursement, stating that "[as] for the cross-claims of respondent DMPI and
Tabusuares against the respondent ALU-TUCP, this Branch cannot validly entertain
the same in the absence of employer-employee relationship between the former and
Doctrines:
the later.
In reconciling the grants of jurisdiction vested under Articles 261 and 217 of the
2. The law precludes the Labor Arbiter from enforcing money claims arising from
Labor Code, the Court has pronounced that ―the original and exclusive
the1 The CBA obviously adopts a closed-shop policy which mandates, as a condition
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter under Article 217(c) for money claims is
of employment, membership in the exclusive bargaining agent. A "closed-shop" may
limited only to those arising from statutes or contracts other than a Collective
be defined as an enterprise in which, by agreement between the employer and his
employees or their representatives, no person may be employed in any or certain
agreed departments of the enterprise unless he or she is, becomes, and, for the
duration of the agreement, remains a member in good standing of a union entirely
comprised of or of which the employees in interest are a part. A CBA provision for a
closed-shop is a valid form of union security and it is not a restriction on the right or
freedom of association guaranteed by the Constitution. implementation of the CBA
Del Monte and ALU expressly recognized the jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators
in the CBA Article 217 of the Labor Code sets forth the original jurisdiction of the
Labor Arbiters. In contrast, Article 261 of the Labor Code indubitably vests on the
Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators the "original and exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide all unresolved grievances arising from the
interpretation or implementation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement." Among
those areas of conflict traditionally within the jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators
are contract-interpretation and contract-implementation, the questions precisely
involved in Del Montes claim. In reconciling the grants of jurisdiction vested under
Articles 261 and 217 of the Labor Code, the Court has pronounced that "the original
and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter under Article 217(c) for money
claims is limited only to those arising from statutes or contracts other than a
Collective Bargaining Agreement. The Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary
Arbitrators will have original and exclusive jurisdiction over money claims 'arising
from the interpretation or implementation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement
and, those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel
policies', under Article 261.