Terania v. Virjen Shipping Corp.
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Felipe T. Terania (Terania) was employed as a boatswain by Virjen Shipping Corporation (VSC) for its foreign principal, Nissho Shipping Co., Ltd. (NSCL), under a Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA)-approved contract that incorporated a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). In March 2013, while on duty, Terania suffered from severe fever, dizziness, and hypertension (168/108 mmHg). He was repatriated in April 2013 and treated by company-designated physicians who cleared him as 'fit to work' in June 2013. Terania, however, continued to experience symptoms and sought an independent medical opinion from a cardiologist, who eventually declared him 'Medically Unfit to Work' due to stage 1 hypertensive heart disease in 2016. 2. Procedural History: Terania filed a complaint for total and permanent disability benefits before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The Labor Arbiter (LA) referred the case to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) because Terania represented that a CBA existed. The Office of the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (PVA) assumed jurisdiction and awarded Terania USD 60,000.00. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) set aside the PVA ruling, holding that the NCMB lacked jurisdiction because Terania failed to produce 'Annex 2' of the CBA, which contained the 'Shipboard Disputes Procedure.' The CA remanded the case to the NLRC. 3. The Petition: Terania filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, arguing that the CA erred in its jurisdictional ruling. He contended that Section 29 of the POEA-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) mandates that parties covered by a CBA must submit disputes to voluntary arbitration. He asserted that the existence of the CBA itself was sufficient to vest jurisdiction in the NCMB, regardless of the missing procedural annex.
Issue(s)
Whether the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB), through the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (PVA), has jurisdiction over the disability claim despite the failure to produce the specific grievance machinery procedures mentioned in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
Ruling
The Petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision is AFFIRMED, and the case is REMANDED to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court ruled that the NCMB lacked jurisdiction because the petitioner failed to prove that the CBA explicitly referred disability claims to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration. While Article 274 of the Labor Code grants Voluntary Arbitrators (VA) jurisdiction over grievances arising from CBA implementation, the Court emphasized in Vivero v. Court of Appeals that such jurisdiction is mandatory only if there is a specific agreement to that effect. In this case, although a CBA was presented, the 'Shipboard Disputes Procedure' (Annex 2) referenced in Article 34 of the CBA was never produced in evidence. Without this annex, the Court could not determine the applicability, scope, or procedural framework of the purported grievance machinery. Following the principle in Corcoro, Jr. v. Magsaysay Mol Marine, Inc., the absence of a clear grievance machinery for disability claims means jurisdiction properly lies with the NLRC. Consequently, the ambiguity regarding the parties' intent to submit the dispute to voluntary arbitration must be resolved in favor of the NLRC's jurisdiction. The Court further noted that since the Labor Arbiter's erroneous referral led to the NCMB proceedings, the petitioner should not be prejudiced, thus necessitating a remand to the NLRC for a resolution on the merits.
Main Doctrine
The jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators (VA) is principally contingent upon the terms mutually agreed upon by the parties in a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). For a VA to acquire original and exclusive jurisdiction over disability claims, the CBA must explicitly delineate the procedure for the submission of such disputes to a grievance machinery. If the procedural framework (such as a referenced 'Shipboard Disputes Procedure' annex) is not produced in evidence, the resulting ambiguity as to the parties' intent to arbitrate necessitates that the dispute be resolved by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).