G.R. No. 246751 - FELIPE T. TERANIA, VS. VIRJEN SHIPPING CORPORATION, NISSHO SHIPPING CO., LTD., AND/OR LEONARDO JIMENO.

Ruling

Accordingly, the PVA ordered respondents to pay Terania USD 60,000.00, or its Philippine peso equivalent, plus 10% thereof as attorney's fees, while all other claims were denied for lack of jurisdiction or merit. [16] The PVA rejected respondents' assertion that the NLRC had exclusive jurisdiction over the present case. It clarified that since Terania's employment was covered by a CBA, the case properly fell within the jurisdiction of voluntary arbitration in accordance with Section 29 of the POEA-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC). As for Terania's claim for disability benefits, the PVA found that Terania is deemed to be suffering from a total and permanent disability because Terania's medical condition persisted for more than 240 days without him being able to return to his previous occupation as a seafarer. It further opined that it could not award to Terania the amount of USD 93,154.00 under the CBA considering the said award is only appropriate in cases of accidents. Since no such accident occurred during Terania's employment, the PVA found it appropriate to award the amount of USD 60,000.00 pursuant to the POEA-SEC. [17] Respondents moved for reconsideration, but it was denied by the PVA through a Resolution [18] dated September 25, 2017. Aggrieved, they filed a Petition for Review before the CA. The CA Ruling In its Decision [19] dated October 25, 2018, the CA set aside the PVA ruling on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, it remanded the case to the NLRC for a resolution on the merits with dispatch. [20] The CA explained that the determinative factor in establishing the jurisdiction of the NCMB is the CBA's explicit provision on referral to a grievance machinery. While the CA acknowledged that a copy of the CBA was submitted as evidence, it took cognizance of the fact that Article 34 thereof referenced a "SHIPBOARD DISPUTES PROCEDURE," purportedly attached as an annex. However, Terania failed to produce a copy of this annex. In its absence, the CA found itself bereft of any basis to determine the applicability, scope, and procedural framework of the purported grievance machinery embedded in the CBA. Consequently, the CA ruled that where ambiguity exists as to whether the parties had indeed agreed to submit their dispute to a grievance machinery, such uncertainty necessarily casts doubt on whether the same dispute was intended to be resolved through voluntary arbitration. In the absence of a clear and definitive agreement, the CA held that the NCMB lacked jurisdiction over the case. [21] Displeased, Terania filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the CA in its Resolution dated April 10, 2019; [22] hence, this Petition. [23] The Issue Before the Court The issue for the Court's resolution is whether the CA correctly ruled that the NCMB has no jurisdiction over the case. The Court's Ruling The Petition lacks merit. Jurisdiction is the power of a court, tribunal, or officer to hear, try, and decide a case. [24