G.R. NO. 165486 - CENTRO ESCOLAR UNIVERSITY FACULTY AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION-INDEPENDENT, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, APRON MANGABAT AS VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR, AND CENTRO ESCOLAR UNIVERSITY.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby issued in favor of the Centro Escolar University and ordering that: Integration of incremental proceeds in the basic pay as provided for in the Collective Bargaining Agreement shall be deducted from the employees' share on the incremental proceeds; Other than that currently provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, no other incremental proceeds shall be integrated in the basic pay; No additional incremental proceeds shall be granted to faculty members with overload assignments and with permanent substitution classes; and, The case is hereby dismissed. [8] Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The appellate court dismissed the petition on the ground that petitioner used a wrong mode of appeal. It held that petitioner should have filed an appeal under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. [9] The Court of Appeals also denied the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner. [10] Hence, this petition based on the following grounds: Respondent court committed reversible error in dismissing the instant petition on technical ground that appeal under Rule 43 is the proper remedy, and not certiorari under Rule 65, when no less than Section 2 of Rule 43 explicitly provides that Rule 43 does not apply in labor cases. Respondent court committed reversible error in relying on Bautista vs. Court of Appeals when Bautista refers to criminal case (while this is a labor case) and the citation is a mere obiter dictum, hence, inapplicable. Respondent court committed reversible error in denying pertitioner's motion for reconsideration based on the case of Luzon Development Bank vs. Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees, to further support the original ruling that Rule 43 is the correct remedy. However, in that case, the Supreme Court equates the award or decisions of voluntary arbitrator with that of RTC and ruled that in a petition for certiorari from that award or decision, Court of Appeals have concurrent jurisdiction with Supreme Court. Thus it ordered the remanding of the petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals, thereby recognizing certiorari as a proper remedy. Respondent court committed reversible error in not holding that, as ruled by the Honorable Supreme Court in a long line of cases, decision of voluntary arbitrator is final and unappealable, except when there is want or excess of jurisdiction, grave abuse of discretion, denial of substantial justice or erroneous interpretation of the law. In such cases, certiorari is the proper remedy. Respondent court committed reversible errors in not holding that the voluntary arbitrator has acted with grave abuse of discretion, without or in excess of jurisdiction, in ignoring the CBA as the law between the parties and in not deciding the grievances through the interpretation or implementation of the CBA pursuant to his limited authority u