Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 7 views

    Ace Navigation Co. Inc. vs. Fernandez, G.R. No. 197309

    Uploaded by

    TYRONE HAO

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ace Navigation Co. Inc. vs. Fernandez, G.R. No. 197309

    Uploaded by

    TYRONE HAO
    7 views2 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    7 views2 pages

    Ace Navigation Co. Inc. vs. Fernandez, G.R. No. 197309

    Uploaded by

    TYRONE HAO

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Case Digest

    Case Title: ACE Navigation Co., Inc., Vela International Marine Ltd., and/or Rodolfo Pamintuan vs.
    Teodorico Fernandez

    G.R. No.: 197309

    Date: October 10, 2012

    Ponente: Justice Brion

    Facts:

    - Teodorico Fernandez, a seaman, filed a complaint for disability benefits against ACE Navigation Co., Inc.
    and its co-defendants.

    - The petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint, claiming that the labor arbiter lacked jurisdiction due
    to the existence of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that provided for mandatory arbitration of
    disputes.

    - The labor arbiter denied the motion, asserting jurisdiction over money claims under the Migrant
    Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 (R.A. No. 8042).

    - The NLRC upheld the labor arbiter's decision, leading the petitioners to seek a review from the Court of
    Appeals (CA), which denied the petition on procedural and substantive grounds.

    Issues:

    1. Whether the CA erred in holding that the labor arbiter had jurisdiction over the case despite the
    existing CBA.

    2. Whether the provisions in the CBA provided for mandatory arbitration of disability claims.

    Ruling:

    1. Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court ruled that the voluntary arbitrator has original and exclusive
    jurisdiction over Fernandez's disability claim, as it arose from his employment and was covered by a CBA
    that provided for a grievance procedure and mandatory arbitration. The CA's conclusion that the labor
    arbiter had jurisdiction was overturned.

    2. CBA Interpretation: The Court found unequivocal language in the CBA that required the parties to
    submit disputes to mandatory arbitration, despite the use of "may" in one section. The CBA's provisions
    clearly mandated that unresolved disputes must be referred to the Grievance Resolution Committee,
    and subsequently to the Mandatory Arbitration Committee.

    Conclusion:

    The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the CA's decision and referring Fernandez's
    disability claim to the appropriate grievance resolution mechanisms as outlined in the CBA.

    Key Takeaways:

    - Jurisdiction of Labor Arbitrators: When a CBA includes provisions for mandatory arbitration, disputes
    arising from employment must be resolved through that arbitration process.

    - Interpretation of CBA Language: Courts must interpret CBA provisions in their entirety, considering the
    clear intent of the parties in their contractual obligations.

    - Preference for Voluntary Dispute Resolution: The State's policy supports the resolution of labor
    disputes through voluntary means, including arbitration, emphasizing the importance of adhering to
    agreed dispute resolution procedures.

    You might also like