TOPIC: JURISDICTION OF LA AND VA

ESTATE OF NELSON DULAY V. ABOITIZ JEBSEN MARITIME, INC.

13 June 2012

Facts:
 Nelson was employed by General Charterer’s Inc, (CGI) a subsidiary of Aboitiz. He worked as
an ordinary seaman and later as a bosun on a contractual basis. From 3 September 1999 – 19
July 2000, Nelson was detailed in MV Kickapoo Belle.
 25 days after the completion of his employment contract, he died due to acute renal failure
secondary to septicemia. At the time of his death, he was a member of the Associated Marine
Officers and Seaman’s Union of the Philippines, (AMOSUP) GCI’s Collective Bargaining Agent
between AMOSUP and GCI.
 Nelson’s wife, Merridy Jane, claimed for death benefits through the grievance procedure under
the CBA between AMOSUP and GCI. However on 29 Jan 2001, the grievance procedure was
declared deadlocked as respondents refused to grant the benefits sought by the widow.
 On 5 March 2001, the widow filed a complaint with the NLRC Sub-Regional Arbitration board in
GenSan against GCI for death and medical benefits + damages. Three days after, Nelson’s
brother received P20,000 from GCI. He signed a certification acknowledging receipt thereof
and releasing GCI from further liability. The widow contends that under the CBA, she is entitled
to $90K and that the P20K should be considered as an advance payment of the total claim.
 GCI contends that the NLRC has no jurisdiction over the action since Nelson was no longer
GCI’s employee at the time of death and that the widow is not entitled to death benefits.
 LA: Held in favor of the widow. Proximate cause of death was work-releated.
 NLRC: Affirmed the LA as to grant of the death benefits under the CBA but reversed as to the
proximate cause of death.
 CA: Referred the case to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board for designation of the
Voluntary Arbitrator to resolve the issue on the matter of the applicable CBA provision. The CA
ruled that while the suit filed by Merridy Jane is a money claim, the same basically involves the
interpretation and application of the provisions in the subject CBA. As such, jurisdiction
belongs to the voluntary arbitrator and not the labor arbiter.

Issue: WON the LA has jurisdiction over the case – NO. CA affirmed.

Ruling:
 The CBA is the law or contract between the parties. Article 13.1 of the CBA entered into by and
between respondent GCI and AMOSUP, the union to which petitioner belongs, provides as
follows: The Company and the Union agree that in case of dispute or conflict in the
interpretation or application of any of the provisions of this Agreement, or enforcement of
Company policies, the same shall be settled through negotiation, conciliation or voluntary
arbitration.
 From the foregoing, it is clear that the parties, in the first place, really intended to bring to
conciliation or voluntary arbitration any dispute or conflict in the interpretation or application of
the provisions of their CBA. It is settled that when the parties have validly agreed on a
procedure for resolving grievances and to submit a dispute to voluntary arbitration then that
procedure should be strictly observed.
 It is only in the absence of a collective bargaining agreement that parties may opt to submit the
dispute to either the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) or to voluntary arbitration.
 It is elementary that rules and regulations issued by administrative bodies to interpret the law,
which they are entrusted to enforce, have the force of law, and are entitled to great respect.
Such rules and regulations partake of the nature of a statute and are just as binding as if they
have been written in the statute itself. In the instant case, the Court finds no cogent reason to
 depart from this rule.
 No less than the Philippine Constitution provides, under the third paragraph, Section 3, Article
XIII, thereof that “The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between
workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes,
including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial
peace.”