Philec v. Court of Appeals
MODIFICATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Philippine Electric Corporation (PHILEC) selected Eleodoro V. Lipio and Emerlito C. Ignacio, Sr. for training for the position of Foreman I and provided them with training allowances based on a "Modified SGV" pay grade scale. PHILEC and the PHILEC Workers' Union (PWU) had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) effective June 1, 1997, which stipulated step increases for promotions and a formula for training allowances. PWU filed a grievance, claiming PHILEC violated the CBA by not using the stipulated step increases for training allowances. Procedural History: The grievance was submitted to Voluntary Arbitrator Ramon T. Jimenez, who ruled that PHILEC violated the June 1, 1997 CBA and ordered PHILEC to pay Lipio and Ignacio, Sr. training allowances based on the CBA. PHILEC's motion for partial reconsideration was denied, and it then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, and PHILEC's subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied. The Petition: PHILEC filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that it did not violate the CBA and that the "Modified SGV" pay grade scale was applied to prevent salary distortion. It also contended that Lipio and Ignacio, Sr. were promoted to a supervisory position, thus the supervisory CBA should apply. The Supreme Court was asked to resolve whether Voluntary Arbitrator Jimenez gravely abused his discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari filed before the Court of Appeals was the proper remedy and whether the Voluntary Arbitrator's decision had become final and executory. Whether PHILEC violated the June 1, 1997 collective bargaining agreement by not paying training allowance based on the stipulated step increases. Whether PHILEC committed an unfair labor practice.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court of Appeals' decision is affirmed. PHILEC is ordered to pay Lipio and Ignacio, Sr. their respective training allowances with legal interest.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy and finality of the Voluntary Arbitrator's decision: The Court held that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was not the proper remedy to assail a Voluntary Arbitrator's award or decision. The proper remedy is an appeal under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Furthermore, Article 262-A of the Labor Code mandates that a Voluntary Arbitrator's decision becomes final and executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the award or decision. This ten-day period is a substantive right and prevails over the fifteen-day period provided in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. PHILEC's petition for certiorari was filed eighteen (18) days after receipt of the resolution denying its motion for reconsideration, which was beyond the ten-day reglementary period. Consequently, the Voluntary Arbitrator's decision had become final and executory and was beyond the purview of the Supreme Court to act upon. On the violation of the collective bargaining agreement: The Court found that PHILEC violated its June 1, 1997 CBA with PWU. Lipio and Ignacio, Sr. were rank-and-file employees when selected for training during the effectivity of this CBA. Therefore, their training allowance should have been computed based on Article X, Section 4 and Article IX, Section 1(f) of the June 1, 1997 CBA. PHILEC's application of the "Modified SGV" pay grade scale, which was not incorporated into the CBA, was unjustified. The Court reiterated that provisions not embodied in the CBA are not part thereof and cannot be implemented. PHILEC's concern about salary distortion could have been addressed during the CBA negotiations. The Court affirmed the Voluntary Arbitrator's computation of the training allowances for Lipio and Ignacio, Sr. based on the CBA provisions. On the claim of unfair labor practice: The Court noted that the Voluntary Arbitrator dismissed the claim of unfair labor practice, finding that PHILEC's acts did not constitute a gross violation or a flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with the economic provisions of the CBA. The Supreme Court did not disturb this finding, as the primary issue revolved around the interpretation and implementation of the CBA provisions regarding training allowances.
Main Doctrine
An appeal from a Voluntary Arbitrator's decision must be filed before the Court of Appeals within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the award or decision, as provided by Article 262-A of the Labor Code. This ten-day period is a substantive right and prevails over the fifteen-day period provided in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. A petition for certiorari is not the proper remedy if an appeal is available.