BOOK FIVE— LABOR RELATIONS 383

TITLE VII-A — GRIEVANCE MACHINERY LABOR AND VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION

which provides that a grievance which is not settled under the grievance machinery
within the prescribed period shall be automatically referred to voluntary arbitration for
this purpose the same Article requires that the parties to a CBA designate in advance
a voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators, or include in the agreement a
procedure for choosing the same. Preference is given to voluntary arbitrators
accredited by the NCMB, but the parties have a freedom of choice.

Even Labor Arbiters may act as voluntary arbitrators, because there is nothing
in the law that prohibits them from doing so, as long as the parties agree to have them
hear and decide their dispute. (Manila Central Line Corporation v. Manila Central Line
Corporation Free Workers Union-NFL. 290 SCRA 690.)
Voluntary arbitration, as a mode of labor dispute settlement, is a contractual
proceeding whereby the parties to the dispute, in order to obtain a speedy and
inexpensive final disposition of their controversy, designate a judge of their own choice
and by consent submit their controversy to him for determination. It should be
distinguished from compulsory arbitration of labor cases which is a process of
settlement Of labor disputes by a government agency which has the power to
investigate and make an award binding on the parties. (Union of Filipino Employees v.
NLRC, 192 SCRA 414.) In compulsory arbitration, the parties do not choose the judge.
The voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators has original and exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide all unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation
or implementation of a CBA and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of
company personnel policies. (Article 274.) They may also hear and decide other labor
disputes, including unfair labor practices and bargaining deadlocks upon agreement of
the parties. (Article 275.)
Under the last paragraph of Article 224, where a case arising from the
interpretation of a CBA or from the interpretation or enforcement of company
personnel policies is filed before a Labor Arbiter, the latter shall dispose of it by
referring the same to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration as may be
provided in the CBA.

Conflicting claims of jurisdiction between Labor Arbiters and voluntary

arbitrators in termination disputes have arisen due to the fact that, under Article 224,
unless otherwise provided in the Code, Labor Arbiters shall have original and
exclusive jurisdiction over,
 BOOK FIVE— LABOR RELATIONS 384
TITLE VII-A — GRIEVANCE MACHINERY LABOR AND VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION

among other matters, termination disputes while, under Article 275, voluntary
arbitrators have original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases arising from the
enforcement of company personnel policies. The argument advanced by those who
favor voluntary arbitration in that dismissal of employees involves the enforcement of
such policies, so that termination cases, especially those between parties that are
bound by a CBA, are cognizable exclusively by voluntary arbitrators.
The Supreme Court, however, has cleared this matter up. In San Miguel
Corporation v. NLRC (255 SCRA 133), the Court ruled that in the absence of any
agreement between the company and the union stating in an unequivocal language
that they conform to the submission of termination disputes to voluntary arbitration,
and consistent with the general rule under Article 224(a), the Labor Arbiter properly
has jurisdiction over a complaint for illegal dismissal. In an earlier case, Sanyo
Philippines Workers Union-PSSLU v. Cañizares (211 SCRA 361), the Court had held
that since there had already been an actual termination, and the union had not
opposed it because it had come to an agreement with the company concerning the
dismissal under the union security clause, due process demanded that the grievances
of the dismissed workers be ventilated before an impartial body. It upheld the
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter.
However, a company's drug abuse policy, which states, among other things,
that "illegal drugs beyond the medically prescribed limits are prohibited in the work
place," is a part of the company personal policies because it is a guiding principle
adopted to safeguard the employees' welfare and insure their efficiency and well-
being. Thus, a case involving the implementation of that policy is subject to the
jurisdiction of a voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators. (Union of Nestle
Workers Cagayan de Oro Factory v. Nestle Philippines, Inc., 391 SCRA 204.)
A voluntary arbitration or panel of arbitrators is chosen by the parties to a
dispute in accordance with the procedure provided in their CBA. In case of failure to
agree, the NCMB shall make the designation, also pursuant to the prescribed
procedure.
The voluntary arbitrator proceeding is usually commenced by the parties'
entering into a submission agreement which contains, among other things, the dispute
submitted for resolution and the name of the voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators
chosen by them. The designated arbitrator calls the parties to a conference
 BOOK FIVE— LABOR RELATIONS 383
TITLE VII-A — GRIEVANCE MACHINERY LABOR AND VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION

where they discuss the terms of submission and the conditions set by the
arbitrator, if any, for accepting the case.
The voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators has the power to hold hearings,
receive the evidence of the parties, and take whatever action is necessary to resolve
the issues subject of the dispute, including efforts to effect a voluntary settlement
between the parties. The arbitrator or panel can also administer oaths, issue
subpoenas and otherwise exercise control over the proceedings, and, finally, to
resolve the dispute and enforce his judgment.
The voluntary arbitrator has plenary jurisdiction to interpret the agreement to
arbitrate and to determine the scope of his authority thereunder, subject to certiorari
jurisdiction in proper cases. (Sime Darby Philippines, Inc. v. NLRC, 180 SCRA 177.)
In voluntary arbitration proceedings, the parties have the right to be accorded
due process. The cardinal primary requirements due process in administrative
proceedings should be observed. The award or decision in the case should contain
the facts established and the law upon which it is based.
As a rule the decision of a voluntary arbitrator chosen by the parties is final,
executory and not appeasable. This is true especially when the parties have stipulated
to that effect in their submission agreement. (Enternit Employees and Workers Union
v. De Veyra, 189 SCRA 752.) For that reason, it has been held that the voluntary
arbitrator lost his jurisdiction over the case submitted to him the moment he rendered
his decision. Therefore, he could no longer entertain a motion for reconsideration of
the decision for its reversal or modification. (Imperial Textile Mills, Inc. v. Sampang,
219 SCRA 651.)
That not, mean however, that the decision in a voluntary arbitration case
cannot be reviewed by the proper court. A voluntary arbitrator, by virtue of his
functions, acts in a quasi-judicial capacity. There is no reason why his decisions
involving interpretations of law shall be beyond judicial review. (Philippine Long
Distance Telephone Company v. Montemayor, 190 SCRA 427.) As a matter of fact,
although Article 268-A (now Article 276) says that the decision shall be final and
executory after ten calendar days from receipt of a copy thereof by the parties, the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 43) allow an appeal therefrom, whether it involves
questions of fact, of law or mixed questions of fact and law, by the aggrieved party
filing a verified petition for review in the Court of Appeals within