Atlas Farms v.

NLRC, November 18, 2002 (Termination

Dispute)
Doctrine: Art 217 (224) of LCP provides that labor arbiters have original and exclusive
jurisdiction over termination disputes, except that provided in Article 261 (274), wherein cases
involve unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the CBA and
those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of Atlas personnel policies.
Facts: Two employees of Atlas Farms, Inc. (Atlas), Jaime O. Dela Peña and Marcial I. Abion, each
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Dela Peña, a former veterinary aide and feedmill operator
of Atlas, was dismissed for refusing to comply with the farm manager after Dela Peña was
allegedly caught urinating and defecating on Atlas property not intended for the purpose; while
Abion, carpenter/mason and maintenance man, was dismissed also for not complying with
orders after having clogged fishpond drainage. [they failed to explain their reasons]
The Labor Arbiter dismissed their complaints on the ground that the grievance machinery in the
CBA had not yet been exhausted. They then availed of the grievance process, but later on re-
filed the case before the NLRC, and alleged "lack of sympathy" on Atlas’s part to engage in
conciliation proceedings. Atlas filed a motion to dismiss, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction,
alleging Dela Peña and Abion themselves admitted that they were members of the employees’
union with which Atlas had an existing CBA with. According to Atlas, jurisdiction over the case
belonged to the grievance machinery and thereafter the voluntary arbitrator, as provided in the
CBA.
LA dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, finding that the case was one of illegal dismissal
and did not involve the interpretation or implementation of any CBA provision. He stated that
Article 217(c) [224] of LCP was inapplicable to the case.
Issue: Whether or not the Labor Arbiter and NLRC has jurisdiction over the cases.
Ruling: Yes, there was no error in upholding the jurisdiction of LA and NLRC. Art 217 (224) of
LCP provides that labor arbiters have original and exclusive jurisdiction over termination
disputes. A possible exception is provided in Article 261 (274), wherein cases involve unresolved
grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the CBA and those arising from
the interpretation or enforcement of Atlas personnel policies.

Pursuant to Art 260 (273) of LCP, the parties to a CBA shall name or designate their respective
representatives to the grievance machinery and if the grievance is unsettled in that level, it shall
automatically be referred to the voluntary arbitrators designated in advance by the parties to a
CBA. Consequently only disputes involving the union and Atlas shall be referred to the
grievance machinery or voluntary arbitrators. In these termination cases, the union had no
participation, having failed to object to the dismissal of the employees concerned by the
petitioner. It is obvious that arbitration without the union’s active participation on behalf of the
dismissed employees would be pointless, or even prejudicial to their cause.