Photo from Unsplash | Giu Vicente
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
Inclaims or disputes between an overseas Filipino worker and their employer, the submission of the claim or dispute by one party to the voluntary arbitrator does not automatically vest the voluntary arbitrator with jurisdiction, if the other party interposes a consistent objection to such jurisdiction. In these instances, the general rule on the jurisdiction of the labor arbiter under Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, shall prevail.
In 2015, Tandayag was hired as a laundry steward by Magsaysay Maritime Corporation (Magsaysay Maritime) for its foreign principal Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. under a nine-month contract. While onboard the vessel Caribbean Princess in 2016, Tandayag experienced extreme pain on his left knee. He was examined in Bermuda and was found to have “left leg cellulitis with ruptured popliteal cyst.” As a result, he was medically repatriated. In the Philippines, Tandayag was referred by Magsaysay Maritime to its designated medical facility, Shiphealth, Inc. and was diagnosed with septic arthritis, requiring a surgical operation and subsequent physical therapy.
Tandayag consulted Dr. Manuel Fidel Magtira, an independent medical expert, who certified that he had a work-sustained injury that rendered him permanently disabled and unfit for further sea duties. Another doctor, orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Victor Gerardo Pundavela, also found that he was permanently disabled. With these diagnoses, Tandayag demanded the payment of disability and other related benefits from respondents, which denied his claims. Thus, Tandayag filed with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board a complaint for payment of total and permanent disability benefits, with claims for damages and attorney’s fees, against respondents.
The Board referred the case to the Office of the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (Panel), which, on December 29, 2017, decided in favor of Tandayag. The Panel also denied respondents’ motion for reconsideration in its April 26, 2018 Resolution.
According to the Court of Appeals, the Panel did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of Tandayag’s complaint.
Aggrieved, respondents filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, which it granted on August 20, 2020. Moreover, according to the Court of Appeals, Tandayag’s money claims against his employers, as an overseas Filipino worker, were within the jurisdiction of the labor arbiters, as provided in Republic Act No. 8042, the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act, as amended by Republic Act No. 10022.
Tandayag’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals in its March 23, 2021 Resolution.
The issue to be resolved in this case is whether the Panel had jurisdiction over Tandayag’s complaint for permanent and total disability benefits, with claims for damages and attorney’s fees.
The Supreme Court ruled in the negative.
Articles 224, 274 and 275 of the Labor Code, as amended, delineate the respective jurisdictions of labor arbiters and voluntary arbitrators. Pursuant to these provisions, workers’ claims for damages arising from employer-employee relations are those within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of labor arbiters. Meanwhile, voluntary arbitrators have original and exclusive jurisdiction over interpretations and implementations of collective bargaining agreements, and interpretations or enforcements of company personnel policies. Voluntary arbitrators may also hear and decide all other labor disputes upon the agreement of the parties.
With regard to overseas Filipino workers, Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended by Republic Act No. 10022, the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act, states that original and exclusive jurisdiction over their claims shall be vested in the labor arbiters.
The Supreme Court clarified by citing Estate of Dulay v. Aboitiz Jebsen Maritime, Inc., that while claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages are generally within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of labor arbiters, if the dispute between the overseas Filipino worker and their employer stems from interpretations or implementations of collective bargaining agreements, then Article 274 of the Labor Code shall apply.
In this case, there was no collective bargaining agreement between the parties and such lack of a collective bargaining agreement was plainly indicated in the petitioner’s contract of employment.
In claims or disputes between an overseas Filipino worker and their employer, the submission of the claim or dispute by one party to the voluntary arbitrator does not automatically vest the voluntary arbitrator with jurisdiction, if the other party interposes a consistent objection to such jurisdiction. In these instances, the general rule on the jurisdiction of the labor arbiter under Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, shall prevail.
Hence, the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing petitioner’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 09175772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.
Leave a Reply