G.R. NO. 142666 - METRO DRUG DISTRIBUTION, INC., VS. METRO DRUG CORPORATION EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION – FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, violations of a Collective Bargaining Agreement, except those which are gross in character, shall no longer be treated as unfair labor practice and shall be resolved as grievances under the Collective Bargaining Agreement. For purposes of this article, gross violations of Collective Bargaining Agreement shall mean flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with the economic provisions of such agreement. Respondent union opposed petitioner's motion to dismiss arguing that as petitioner's non-compliance with the CBA provision on grievance procedure is raised as an issue before the labor arbiter, it would be premature to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and that resort to labor arbiter is permitted if recourse to the grievance machinery would be futile. [8] In this case, as petitioner obstinately refused to comply with its responsibility under the CBA, substantive justice requires the intervention of the labor arbiter. In its order dated 19 March 1998, Labor Arbiter Jose G. De Vera denied petitioner's motion to dismiss, thus: WHEREFORE, the respondent's [petitioner herein] motion to dismiss is denied. Both parties are required to file their respective position papers not later than April 28, 1998. [9] Aggrieved, petitioner elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 [10] claiming that the labor arbiter committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the complaint filed by respondent union was within his jurisdiction in contravention of the policy promoting free collective bargaining and negotiation and the adoption of voluntary arbitration as a mode of settling labor or industrial dispute. The appellate court, however, found no merit in petitioner's arguments and therefore dismissed the same. The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals' decision states: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. [11] Similarly ill-fated was petitioner's motion for reconsideration which was denied through the Court of Appeals' resolution promulgated on 27 March 2000. [12] Petitioner is now before this Court assailing the aforementioned decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals on the following grounds: THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RENDERING THE ASSAILED DECISION/RESOLUTION, HAVING DECIDED A QUESTION OF PROCEDURE IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT, CONSIDERING THAT: I. THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION DO NOT PERMIT THE FILING OF AN APPEAL OR A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FROM AN ORDER DENYING A MOTION TO DISMISS IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LABOR ARBITER. HENCE, PETITIONER INVOKED THE JURISDICTION OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AS THERE WAS NO OTHER APPEAL NOR ANY PLAIN, SPEEDY AND ADEQUATE REMEDY IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF LAW AVAILABLE TO IT. II. CONSIDERING THAT THE RESPONDENT LABOR ARBITER ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN DENYING THE MOTION TO DISMI