Professional Documents
Culture Documents
is
tantamount
to
a
deprivation of the right
and opportunity of the
respondent
commission
to cleanse itself of an
error
unwittingly
committed or to vindicate
itself of an act unfairly
imputed. . . .
Likewise, a motion for reconsideration is
an adequate remedy; hence certiorari
proceedings, as in this case, will not
prosper.
As stated in the Decision of the Labor Arbiter in NLRCNCR-Case No. 00-03-0201-93, dated January 19, 1994,
the facts of this case are undisputed. The Labor Arbiter
reported, thus:
Complainant, in his position paper
(Record, pages 11 to 14) states that he
was hired sometime in July 1980 as a
stevedore continuously until he was
advised in April 1991 to retire from
service considering that he already
reached 65 years old (sic); that
accordingly, he did apply for retirement
and was paid P3,156.39 for retirement
pay . . . (Rollo, pp. 15, 26-27, 58-59).
Decision of the Labor
Arbiter
in
NLRC-NCRCase No. 00-03-0210193, January 9, 1994
(Rollo, pp. 15017, at pp.
16-17).
The Labor Arbiter decided the case solely on the merits of
the complaint. Nowhere in the Decision is made mention
of or reference to the issue of jurisdiction of the Labor
Arbiter (Rollo, pp. 15-17). But the issue of jurisdiction is
the bedrock of the Petition because, as earlier intimated,
the Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission,
hereinbelow quoted, reversed the Labor Arbiter's
Decision on the issue of jurisdiction. Reads subject
Decision of the Labor Arbiter:
Respondents,
in
their
Reply
to
complainant's position paper, allege
(Record,
pages
18
to
21)
that
complainant's latest basic salary was
P120.34 per day; that he only worked on
rotation basis and not seven days a week
due to numerous stevedores who can not
all be given assignments at the same
time; that all stevedores only for paid
every time they were assigned or actually
performed
stevedoring;
that
the
computation used in arriving at the
amount of P3,156.30 was the same
computation applied to the other
stevedores; that the use of divisor 303 is
not applicable because complainant
performed stevedoring job only on call, so
while he was connected with the
company for the past 11 years, he did not
actually render 11 years of service; that
He
is
Appeal
2. Jurisdictional Issue
The jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and Voluntary Arbitrator
or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators is clearly defined and
specifically delineated in the Labor Code. The pertinent
provisions of the Labor Code, read:
A. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters
Art. 217. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiter and
the Commission. (a) Except as
otherwise provided under this Code the
Labor Arbiter shall have original and
exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide,
within thirty (30) calendar days after the
submission of the case by the parties for
decision without extension, even in the
absence of stenographic notes, the
following cases involving all workers,
whether agricultural or non-agricultural:
1. Unfair labor practice cases;
2. Termination disputes;
3. If accompanied with a claim for
reinstatement, those cases that workers
may file involving wages, rates of pay,
hours of work and other terms and
conditions of employment;
4. claims for actual, moral, exemplary
and other forms of damages arising from
the employer-employee relations;
5. Cases arising from any violation of
Article 264 of this Code, including
questions involving the legality of strikes
and lockouts; and,
6.
Except
claims
for
Employees
Compensation, Social Security, Medicare
and maternity benefits, all other claims,
arising
from
employer-employee
relations, including those of persons in
domestic or household service, involving
an amount exceeding five thousand
pesos (P5,000) regardless of whether
accompanied
with
a
claim
for
reinstatement.
xxx xxx xxx
(c) Cases arising from the interpretation
or
implementation
of
collective
bargaining agreement and those arising
from the interpretation or enforcement of
company procedure/policies shall be
disposed of by the Labor Arbiter by
referring the same to the grievance
machinery and voluntary arbitrator so
maybe provided in said agreement.
B. Jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrator or
Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators
Art. 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
A. Art. 217.
Arbiters . . .
Jurisdiction
of
Labor
10
MARILOU
GUANZON
APALISOK,
petitioner,
vs.
RADIO PHILIPPINES NETWORK RADIO STATION
DYKC and STATION MANAGER GEORGE SUAZO,
respondents.
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 assailing the Court of Appeals Decision 1 of
October 30, 1998 and Resolution 2 of February 26, 1999.
On May 15, 1995, Marilou Gaunzon Apalisok (petitioner),
then Production Chief of Radio Philippines Network (RPN)
Station DYKC, received a Memorandum 3 from Branches
Operations Manager Gilito Datoc asking her to submit a
written explanation why no disciplinary action should be
taken against her for performance of acts hostile to RPN,
and arrogant, disrespectful and defiant behavior towards
her superior Station Manager George Suazo.
Complying, petitioner submitted on May 16, 1995 her
Answer4 to the memorandum.
On May 31, 1995, petitioner received another
memorandum from the Administrative Manager of RPN,
informing her of the termination of her services effective
the close of regular office hours of June 15, 1995.
By letter of June 5, 1995, petitioner informed RPN, by
letter of June 5, 1995, of her decision to waive her right to
resolve her case through the grievance machinery of RPN
as provided for in the Collective Bargaining Agreement
(CBA) and to lodge her case before the proper
government forum. She thereafter filed a complaint
against RPN DYKC and Suazo (respondents) for illegal
dismissal
before
the
National
Labor
Relations
Commission, Regional Arbitration Branch of Region 7
which referred it to the National Conciliation and
Mediation Board.
By Submission Agreement 5 dated June 20, 1995 signed
by their respective counsels, petitioner and respondents
agreed to submit for voluntary arbitration the issue of
whether petitioner's dismissal was valid and to abide by
the decision of the voluntary arbitrator.
In her position paper6 submitted before the voluntary
arbitrator, petitioner prayed that her dismissal be
declared invalid and that she be awarded separation pay,
backwages and other benefits granted to her by the
Labor Code since reinstatement is no longer feasible due
to strained relations. She also prayed that she be
awarded P2,000,000.00 for moral damages and
P500,000.00 for exemplary damages.
Respondents on the other hand prayed for the dismissal
of the complaint, arguing that the voluntary arbitrator
had no jurisdiction over the case and, assuming that he
had, the complaint is dismissible for lack of merit as
petitioner was not illegally dismissed.7
On October 18, 1995, the voluntary arbitrator rendered
an Award8 in favor of petitioner, the dispositive portion of
which reads:
WHEREFORE, above premises considered, this
Voluntary Arbitrator rules that the dismissal of
complainant was invalid.
the
total
award
is
hereunder
EXEMPLARY
11
12
LUDO
&
LUYM
CORPORATION,
petitioner,
vs.
FERDINAND SAORNIDO as voluntary arbitrator and
LUDO EMPLOYEES UNION (LEU) representing 214 of
its officers and members, respondents.
QUISUMBING, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari seeks to annul and
set aside the decision1 of the Court of Appeals
promulgated on July 6, 1999 and its Order denying
petitioners motion for reconsideration in CA-G.R. SP No.
44341.
13
14
15
KAPUNAN, J.:
The petition for review on certiorari before us seeks to
reverse and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals
which denied due course to the petition for certiorari filed
by the Asset Privatization Trust (APT) assailing the order
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 62, Makati City.
The Makati RTC's order upheld and confirmed the award
made by the Arbitration Committee in favor of
Marinduque Mining and Industrial Corporation (MMIC) and
against the Government, represented by herein petitioner
APT for damages in the amount of P2.5 BILLION (or
approximately P4.5 BILLION, including interest).
Ironically, the staggering amount of damages was
imposed on the Government for exercising its legitimate
right of foreclosure as creditor against the debtor MMIC
as a consequence of the latter's failure to pay its overdue
and unpaid obligation of P22 billion to the Philippine
National Bank (PNB) and the Development Bank of the
Philippines (DBP).
The
of the case.
antecedent
facts
16
NOW
THEREFORE,
for
and
in
consideration of the foregoing premises
and the mutual covenants contained
herein the parties agree as follows:
2.
Approving
the
Compromise
and
Arbitration
Agreement
dated October 6, 1997,
attached as Annex "C" of
the Omnibus Motion.
3.
Approving
the
Transformation
of
the
reliefs prayed for [by] the
plaintiffs in this case into
pure money claims; and
4. The Complaint
hereby DISMISSED. 15
is
17
defendant
to
pay
16
18
18
19
22
20
28
provides that:
IV
The nature and limits of the
Arbitrators' power.
As a rule, the award of an arbitrator cannot be set aside
for mere errors of judgment either as to the law or as to
the facts. 29 Courts are without power to amend or
overrule merely because of disagreement with matters of
law or facts determined by the arbitrators. 30 They will not
review the findings of law and fact contained in an award,
and will not undertake to substitute their judgment for
that of the arbitrators, since any other rule would make
an award the commencement, not the end, of litigation.
31
Errors of law and fact, or an erroneous decision of
matters submitted to the judgment of the arbitrators, are
insufficient to invalidate an award fairly and honestly
made. 32 Judicial review of an arbitration is thus, more
limited than judicial review of a trial. 33
Nonetheless, the arbitrators' award is not absolute and
without exceptions. The arbitrators cannot resolve issues
beyond the scope of the submission agreement. 34 The
parties to such an agreement are bound by the
arbitrators' award only to the extent and in the manner
prescribed by the contract and only if the award is
rendered in conformity thereto. 35 Thus, Sections 24 and
25 of the Arbitration Law provide grounds for vacating,
rescinding or modifying an arbitration award. Where the
36
conditions
described
in
Articles
2038,
2039, 37 and 1040 38 of the Civil Code applicable to
compromises and arbitration are attendant, the
arbitration award may also be annulled.
In Chung Fu Industries (Phils.) vs. Court of Appeals,
held:
39
we
21
foreclosure of mortgage
structuring program:
22
23
24
did
not
agree
and
correctly
25
sue
the
26
27
ARTICLE XII
GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
xxxx
28
29
30
31
32
33
WAS
C
E.O. NO. 1008 IS A SUBSTANTIVE LAW,
NOT MERELY PROCEDURAL AS RULED BY
THE CIAC.
D
AN INDORSEMENT OF THE AUDITOR
GENERAL DECIDING A CONTROVERSY IS A
DECISION BECAUSE ALL THE ELEMENTS
FOR
JUDGMENT
ARE
THERE;
THE
CONTROVERSY, THE AUTHORITY TO
DECIDE AND THE DECISION. IF IT IS NOT
APPEALED SEASONABLY, THE SAME
BECOMES FINAL.
E
NIA HAS TIMELY RAISED THE ISSUE OF
JURISDICTION. IT DID NOT WAIVE NOR IS
IT ESTOPPED FROM ASSAILING THE SAME.
F
THE LEGAL DOCTRINE THAT JURISDICTION
IS DETERMINED BY THE STATUTE IN
FORCE
AT
THE
TIME
OF
THE
COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACTION DOES
NOT ONLY APPLY TO THE INSTANT CASE.
11
34
35
36
37
38
(Paid
in
two
equal
trances)
39
1/4x1/3[(1/10xP125,000,000.00)1%]x294=P3,062,498.78
.[6
The CIAC then decreed:
Accordingly, as presented below, all the amounts due MCI
are first listed and added up and the total payment is
deducted therefrom. The admitted total payment figure
as reflected in the Terms of Reference is the amount
applied instead of the total reflected in CHATHAMs
Summary of Payments which incidentally reflected a
lesser amount. From the Balance Due MCI the Amounts
CPI is Held Entitled To is deducted and the Net Amount
Due MCI is arrived at.
A. AMOUNTS HELD MCI IS ENTITLED TO:
A.1.
From
the
original
contract:
P125,000,000.00 P117,650,000.00
94.12%
of
40
41
A.1.
From
the
original
contract:
P125,000,000.00 P117,650,000.00
94.12%
of
DUE
[CHATHAM]
(B
minus
A)
42
43
44
45
would be
liquidated
monetary
CHATHAM
46
&
FELICIANO, J.:
On 18 June 1993, a "Petition for Extension to File Petition
for Review" 1 was filed before the Court, petitioner HiPrecision Steel Center, Inc. ("Hi-Precision") stating that it
intended to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari in
respect of the 13 November 1992 Award 2 and 13 May
1993 Order 3 of public respondent Construction Industry
Arbitration Commission ("CIAC") in Arbitration Case No.
13-90. The Petition (really a Motion) prayed for an
extension of thirty (30) days or until 21 July 1993 within
which to file a Petition for Review.
An opposition 4 to the Motion was filed by private
respondent Lim Kim Steel Builders, Inc. ("Steel Builders")
on 5 July 1993. On the same day, however, the Court
issued a Resolution 5 granting the Motion with a warning
that no further extension would be given.
The Opposition, the subsequent Reply of petitioner filed
on 20 July 1993 and the Petition for Review 7 dated 21
July 1993, were noted by the Court in its Resolution 8 of
28 July 1993. The Court also required private respondent
Steel Builders to file a Comment on the Petition for
Review and Steel Builders complied.
6
47
48
49
Progress
12.2.
Change
12.3.
-do12.4.
-do12.5.
-do12.6.
-do12.7.
-do12.8.
-do12.9.
-do12.10.
-do12.11.
-do12.12.
-do12.13.
-do12.14.
-do12.15.
-do12.16.
-do12.17.
-do12.18.
-do12.19.
12.20.
12.21.
12.22.
12.23.
12.24.
12.25.
12.26.
12.27.
12.28.
12.29.
12.30. 0.00
Billing
Order
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1
0.00
10,014.00
320,000.00
112,300.70
398,398.00
353,050.38
503,836.53
216,138.75
101,621.40
7,200.00
0.00
7,800.00
49,250.00
167,952.00
445,600.00
92,457.30
1,500.00
20,240.00
63,518.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
730,201.57
1,130,722.70
0.00
273,991.00
12.31. 7,318,499.28
29
=============
Upon the other hand, the petitioner's claims we are asked
to review and grant are summarized as follows:
1. Actual Damages
Advance
Downpayment
[at]
signing
of
Contract
which
is
subject
to
40%
deduction
every
progress
billing
(40%
of
Contract
Price)
P8,406,000.00
Progress Billings 5,582,585.55
Advances made to Lim Kim
a)
prior
to
take-over
b) after the take-over
392,781.45
Civil
Works
1,158,513.88
Materials
4,213,318.72
Labor
2,155,774.79
Equipment Rental 1,448,208.90
50
P8,974,816.45
SO ORDERED.
due
a.
Amount
not
yet
from
Downpayment
to
non-completion
of
(P24.1326%) 2,027,138.40
from
paid
Lim
deducted
due
Project
b.
Due
to
Huey
Commercial
used for HSCI Project 51,110.40
IC Additional construction expenses
a. Increases
5,272,096.81
in
prices
since
Oct.
P38,231,927.32 30
=============
We consider that in asking this Court to go over each
individual claim submitted by it and each individual
countering claim submitted by Steel Builders to the
Arbitral Tribunal, petitioner Hi-Precision is asking this
Court to pass upon claims which are either clearly and
directly
factual
in nature
or require
previous
determination of factual issues. This upon the one hand.
Upon the other hand, the Court considers that petitioner
Hi-Precision has failed to show any serious errors of law
amounting to grave abuse of discretion resulting in lack
of jurisdiction on the part of the Arbitral Tribunal, in either
the methods employed or the results reached by the
Arbitral Tribunal, in disposing of the detailed claims of the
respective parties.
WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing, the Petition is hereby
DISMISSED for lack of merit. Costs against petitioner.
51
GANCAYCO, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of a decision of
the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City promulgated on
March 24, 1986 in Civil Case No. Q-46517 entitled Banco
de Oro Savings and Mortgage Bank versus Equitable
Banking Corporation and the Philippine Clearing House
Corporation after a review of the Decision of the Board of
Directors of the Philippine Clearing House Corporation
(PCHC) in the case of Equitable Banking Corporation
(EBC) vs. Banco de Oro Savings and Mortgage (BCO),
ARBICOM Case No. 84033.
The undisputed facts are as follows:
It appears that some time in March, April,
May and August 1983, plaintiff through its
Visa Card Department, drew six crossed
Manager's check (Exhibits "A" to "F", and
herein referred to as Checks) having an
aggregate amount of Forty Five Thousand
Nine Hundred and Eighty Two & 23/100
(P45,982.23) Pesos and payable to
certain member establishments of Visa
Card. Subsequently, the Checks were
deposited with the defendant to the
credit of its depositor, a certain Aida
Trencio.
Following normal procedures, and after
stamping at the back of the Checks the
usual endorsements. All prior and/or lack
of
endorsement
guaranteed
the
defendant sent the checks for clearing
through the Philippine Clearing House
Corporation (PCHC). Accordingly, plaintiff
paid the Checks; its clearing account was
debited for the value of the Checks and
defendant's
clearing
account
was
credited for the same amount,
Thereafter, plaintiff discovered that the
endorsements appearing at the back of
the Checks and purporting to be that of
the
payees
were
forged
and/or
unauthorized or otherwise belong to
persons other than the payees.
Pursuant to the PCHC Clearing Rules and
Regulations,
plaintiff
presented
the
Checks directly to the defendant for the
purpose of claiming reimbursement from
the latter. However, defendant refused to
accept such direct presentation and to
reimburse the plaintiff for the value of the
Checks; hence, this case.
52
53
54
55
the
following
Rise
To
Return
Received
To
An
Amounts
obligation
to
return
the
amounts
received. Section 2154 of the New Civil
Code mandates that:
Article 2154. If something
is received when there is
no right to demand it, and
it was unduly delivered
through
mistake,
the
obligation to return it
arises.
It is contended that plaintiff should be
held responsible for issuing the Checks
notwithstanding that the underlying
transactions
were
fictitious
This
contention
has
no
basis
in
our
jurisprudence.
The nullity of the underlying transactions
does
not
diminish,
but
in
fact
strengthens, plaintiffs right to recover
from the defendant. Such nullity clearly
emphasizes the obligation of the payees
to return the proceeds of the Checks. If a
failure of consideration is sufficient to
warrant a finding that a payee is not
entitled to payment or must return
payment already made, with more reason
the defendant, who is neither the payee
nor the person authorized by the payee,
should be compelled to surrender the
proceeds of the Checks received by it.
Defendant does not have any title to the
Checks; neither can it claim any
derivative title to them.
III. Having Violated Its Warranty
On
Validity
Endorsements,
Collecting
Deny
liability
Relied
To
Bank
Of
All
Cannot
Those
Who
On Its Warranty
In presenting the Checks for clearing and
for payment, the defendant made an
express guarantee on the validity of "all
prior endorsements." Thus, stamped at
the bank of the checks are the
defendant's clear warranty: ALL PRIOR
ENDORSEMENTS
AND/OR
LACK
OF
ENDORSEMENTS GUARANTEED. Without
such warranty, plaintiff would not have
paid on the checks.
No amount of legal jargon can reverse the
clear meaning of defendant's warranty. As
the warranty has proven to be false and
inaccurate, the defendant is liable for any
damage arising out of the falsity of its
representation.
The principle of estoppel effectively
prevents the defendant from denying
56
57
CASE
DIGEST:
Commercial
Instruments,
G.
Law,
R.
No.
123793,
June
Corporation, Merger,
Promissory
29,
1998
Negotiable
Note
FACTS:
Associated Banking Corporation and Citizens Bank and
Trust Company (CBTC) merged to form just one banking
corporation known as Associated Citizens Bank (later
renamed Associated Bank), the surviving bank. After the
merger agreement had been signed, but before a
certificate of merger was issued, respondent Lorenzo
Sarmiento, Jr. executed in favor of Associated Bank a
promissory note, promising to pay the bank P2.5 million
on or before due date at 14% interest per annum, among
other accessory dues. For failure to pay the amount due,
Sarmiento
was
sued
by
Associated
Bank.
Respondent argued that the plaintiff is not the proper
party in interest because the promissory note was
executed in favor of CBTC. Also, while respondent
executed the promissory note in favor of CBTC, said note
was a contract pour autrui, one in favor of a third person
who may demand its fulfillment. Also, respondent claimed
that he received no consideration for the promissory note
and, in support thereof, cites petitioner's failure to submit
any proof of his loan application and of his actual receipt
of
the
amount
loaned.
ISSUE:
1.) Whether or not Associated Bank, the surviving
corporation, may enforce the promissory note made by
private respondent in favor of CBTC, the absorbed
company, after the merger agreement had been signed,
but before a certificate of merger was issued?
petition
is
impressed
with
merit.
58
PANGANIBAN, J.:
In a merger, does the surviving corporation have a right
to enforce a contract entered into by the absorbed
company subsequent to the date of the merger
agreement, but prior to the issuance of a certificate of
merger by the Securities and Exchange Commission?
The Case
This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, seeking to set aside the Decision 1 of the Court of
Appeals 2 in CA-GR CV No. 26465 promulgated on January
30, 1996, which answered the above question in the
negative. The challenged Decision reversed and set aside
the October 17, 1986 Decision 3 in Civil Case No. 8532243, promulgated by the Regional Trial Court of Manila,
Branch 48, which disposed of the controversy in favor of
herein petitioner as follows: 4
WHEREFORE,
judgment
is
hereby
rendered in favor of the plaintiff
Associated Bank. The defendant Lorenzo
Sarmiento, Jr. is ordered to pay plaintiff:
1. The amount of P4,689,413.63 with
interest thereon at 14% per annum until
fully paid;
2. The amount of P200,000.00 as and for
attorney's fees; and
3. The costs of suit.
On the other hand, the Court of Appeals resolved the
case in this wise: 5
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
decision appealed from, dated October
17, 1986 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and
another judgment rendered DISMISSING
plaintiff-appellee's complaint, docketed
as Civil Case No. 85-32243. There is no
pronouncement as to costs.
The Facts
The undisputed factual antecedents, as narrated by the
trial court and adopted by public respondent, are as
follows: 6
. . . [O]n or about September 16, 1975
Associated Banking Corporation and
Citizens Bank and Trust Company merged
to form just one banking corporation
known as Associated Citizens Bank, the
surviving bank. On or about March 10,
1981, the Associated Citizens Bank
changed
its
corporate
name
to
Associated Bank by virtue of the
Amended Articles of Incorporation. On
September 7, 1977, the defendant
executed in favor of Associated Bank a
59
60
Main
Bank
Issue:
Assumed
61
Issues:
Contract
No
or Laches
Prescription
Contract
62
63