G.R. No. 95940 - PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS, INC., VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND URBANO SUÑIGA.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, with all the foregoing considerations, we find the three complainants illegally and unjustly dismissed and we hereby order the respondent to reinstate them to their former or substantially equivalent positions without loss of seniority rights with full backwages and other benefits, computed as follows: xxx xxx xxx 3. Urbano Suñiga 27,375.00 - Backwages Aug. 16/89 to March 31/90 (P3,650.00 x 7.5 mos.) 1,368.75 - 13th month pay for 1989 (P16,425.00 over 12) P28,743.75 2,874.37 - 10% attorney's fees P31,618.12 - Total as of March 31/90 plus additional backwages and other benefits but not to exceed 3 years and the corresponding attorney's fees. The amounts already received by complainants shall be considered as advanced payment of their retirement pay which shall be deducted when they shall actually retire or (be) separated from the service. The order of reinstatement is immediately executory even pending appeal." Petitioner appealed to public respondent, which issued the questioned Resolution affirming the labor arbiter's decision in toto. Hence, this petition. The Issues Petitioner raises the following issues for decision: "I. The National Labor Relations Commission gravely abused its discretion in holding that the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction over the case. II. Assuming that the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction over the case, the National Labor Relations Commission gravely abused its discretion in affirming the Labor Arbiter's decision that private respondent Urbano Zuñiga (sic) was illegally dismissed." Of course, it is obvious that the underlying and pivotal issue is whether the CBA stipulation on compulsory retirement after twenty-five years of service is legal and enforceable. If it is, private respondent has been validly retired. Otherwise, petitioner is guilty of illegal dismissal. The answer to said question will settle the issue of the validity of the questioned resolution of the public respondent. The Court's Ruling On the key issue, the Court finds the petition meritorious, thus warranting reversal of the questioned Resolution. First Issue: Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiter Petitioner contends that the labor arbiter had no jurisdiction because the dispute concerns a provision of the CBA and its interpretation. It claims that the case falls under the jurisdiction of the voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators under Article 261 of the Labor Code, which provides: "Article 261. Jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators. -- The Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide all unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies referred to in the immediately preceding Article. Accordingly, violations of a Collective Bargaining Agreement, except those which are gross in character, shal