You are on page 1of 2

arbitrator or panel of arbitrators should likewise be appealable to the Court of

Appeals, just like those of the quasi-judicial agencies, boards and commissions
Article 261-262 enumerated therein, and consistent with the original purpose to provide a
uniform procedure for the appellate review of adjudications of all quasi-judicial
1. MIGUELA SANTUYO, et al., petitioners, vs. REMERCO
entities.
ARTICLE 260-261 in relation to ARTICLE 217; Cases arising from the
Hence, upon receipt on May 26, 2003 of the Voluntary Arbitrators Resolution
interpretation or implementation of collective bargaining agreements shall be
denying petitioners motion for reconsideration, petitioner should have filed
disposed of by the Labor Arbiter by referring the same to the grievance
with the CA, within the fifteen (15)-day reglementary period, a petition for
machinery and voluntary arbitration.
review, not a petition for certiorari.
Moreover, Article 260 of the Labor Code clarifies that such disputes must be
Separation pay shall be allowed as a measure of social justice only in those
referred first to the grievance machinery and, if unresolved within seven days,
instances where the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious
they shall automatically be referred to voluntary arbitration.
misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character. Where the reason for the
2. Teng v. Pahagac valid dismissal is, for example, habitual intoxication or an offense involving
moral turpitude, like theft or illicit sexual relations with a fellow worker, the
Article 262-A of the Labor Code does not prohibit the filing of a motion for employer may not be required to give the dismissed employee separation pay,
reconsideration. or financial assistance, or whatever other name it is called, on the ground of
social justice. A contrary rule would, as the petitioner correctly argues, have the
[U]nder Section 6, Rule VII of the same guidelines implementing Article 262-A of effect, of rewarding rather than punishing the erring employee for his offense.
the Labor Code, this Decision, as a matter of course, would become final and
executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt of copies of the decision by 4. Baronda v CA
the parties x x x unless, in the meantime, a motion for reconsideration or a
petition for review to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court is To begin with, even if the error sought to be reviewed concerned grave abuse of
filed within the same 10-day period. We consequently rule that the respondent discretion on the part of the Voluntary Arbitrator, the remedy was an appeal in
workers seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration of the VA’s judgment, and due course by filing the petition for review within 10 days from notice of the
the VA erred in denying the motion because no motion for reconsideration is award or decision. This was because certiorari, as an extraordinary remedy,
allowed. was available only when there was no appeal, or any plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law.30 In other words, the justification for
The decision, order, resolution or award of the voluntary arbitrator or panel of HIDECO's resort to the extraordinary equitable remedy of certiorari did not
voluntary arbitrators shall be final and executory after ten (10) calendar days exist due to the availability of appeal, or other ordinary remedies in law to
from receipt of the copy of the award or decision by the parties and it shall not which HIDECO as the aggrieved party could resort.
be subject of a motion for reconsideration.
5. Coca cola v. Bacolod Sales Force Union Congress
3. Samahan ng mga Mangagawa sa Hyatt (SAMASAH-NUWHRAIN) v. However, in view of the nature of their functions, voluntary arbitrators act in a
Magsalin, quasi-judicial capacity;hence, their judgments or final orders which are
declared final by law are not so exempt from judicial review when so
It is the well-settled rule that a decision or award of a voluntary arbitrator is warranted. "Any agreement stipulating that 'the decision of the arbitrator
appealable to the CA via petition for review under Rule 43. We held that: In shall be final and unappealable' and 'that no further judicial recourse if
either party disagrees with the whole or any part of the arbitrator's award
Luzon Development Bank v. Association of Luzon Development Bank
may be availed of' cannot be held to preclude in proper cases the power of
Employees, where the Court held that the decision or award of the voluntary judicial review which is inherent in courts."

the Court allowed the filing of a petition for certiorari from the VA's judgment to the CA under Rule 65 of the same Rules. the impact of the differences in the selection processes applied and relevant qualifications between the Cosmos integrees and the newly-hired ADs.However. the CA ought to determine the proper application of the "equal pay for equal work" principle vis-a-vis the business decision of an employer to adopt a more competitive compensation scheme in light of the demands in human resource. in several cases. particularly. . As such. where the VA was averred to have acted without or in excess of his jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. the CA should look into the soundness of the VA rulings in relation to the nuances averred. Moreover.