DEFENDANT:

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION:

I.

The labor arbiter have not acquired jurisdiction over the dispute due to
non-observance by the complainant of the grievance machinery as
provided for in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

The Labor arbiter have not acquired jurisdiction over the case. Paragraph 2 of
Article 261 of the Labor Code (Jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators or panel of
Voluntary Arbitrators), provides that The Commission, its Regional Offices and the
Regional Directors of the Department of Labor and Employment SHALL NOT
ENTERTAIN disputes, grievance or matters under the exclusive and original
jurisdiction of the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators and SHALL
IMMEDIATELY DISPOSE AND REFER the same to the grievance machinery or
voluntary arbitration provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
In the case at bar, the complainants hastily filed their labor case at the NLRC
RAB VII, when it was expressly provided for in their CBA that any disputes involving
the school and its employee must first be resolved via grievance machinery as
enshrined in the CBA. In the case Ace Navigation Co. Inc. vs. Teodorico Fernandez,
the court held that 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. Since the claim of the complainant
is one of economic in nature, it is imperative that they first seek to settle the
dispute in a venue and manner provided for their CBA. The law and the principle of
justice which sought to promote industrial peace, requires that the case be
dismissed by the Labor Arbiter and referred to the grievance machinery as provided
in their CBA.
It is well settled that before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the
court, it is a precondition that he should have availed of all the means of
administrative processes afforded him. Hence, if a remedy within the administrative
machinery can still be resorted to by giving the administrative officer concerned
every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his jurisdiction, then

such remedy should be exhausted first before the courts judicial power can be
sought. The premature invocation of the courts judicial intervention is fatal to ones
cause of action. Indeed, the underlying principle of the rule on exhaustion of
administrative remedies rests on the presumption that when the administrative
body, or grievance machinery, is afforded a chance to pass upon the matter, it will
decide the same correctly. In the case of San Agustin University employees Union
vs. Court of Appeals, the court in dismissing the petition held that
the Commission, its Regional Offices and the Regional Directors of the Department
of Labor and Employment (DOLE) shall not entertain disputes, grievances or
matters under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Voluntary Arbitrator or
panel of Voluntary Arbitrators and shall immediately dispose and refer the same to
the Grievance Machinery or Voluntary Arbitration provided in the CBA.

II.

The action of Brittanica does not constitute Unfair Labor Practice.

Article 248 of the Labor Code enumerates the acts which constitutes unfair
labor practice. The complainants dependence on paragraph i of Article 248
which provides that To violate collective bargaining agreement, is greatly
misplaced. In the case Davao Integrated Port Stevedoring Service vs.
Abarquez, the court held that While the terms and conditions of a CBA
constitute the law between the parties, it is not, however, an ordinary
contract to which is applied the principles of law governing ordinary
contracts. A CBA, as a labor contract within the contemplation of Article 1700
of the Civil Code of the Philippines which governs the relations between labor
and capital, is not merely contractual in nature but impressed with public
interest, thus, it must yield to the common good. As such, it must be
construed liberally rather than narrowly and technically, and the courts must
place a practical and realistic construction upon it, giving due consideration
to the context in which it is negotiated and purpose which it is intended to
serve. The stipulation in the CBA should not be strictly adhered, without
exception and without consideration as to the present condition of any of the
parties. As public policy requires, it must not be used to benefit only one
party and be a detriment to the other. Jurisprudence clearly provides that it
must yield to the common good.
In the case at bar, Brittanica is suffering from severe economic loss. It
even exerted all its effort to be able to adhere and comply with the terms and
conditions enshrined in the CBA. Now, to insist that the school despite its
economic downfall must still abide by the stipulations in the CBA regardless
of the controlling circumstances, would be to allow the CBA as a means for
the management to self-destruct. Because, where will Brittanica get the
money to pay them?

However, that is not the case nor should it be. The law on unfair labor
practice is not intended to deprive the employer of his fundamental right to
prescribe and enforce such rules as he honestly believes to be necessary for
the proper, productive and profitable operation of his business. Unfair Labor
Practice cannot be appreciated when the management is merely exercising
its management rights validly, valid in a sense that it is exercised in good
faith.
This good faith of Brittanica is shown by their gratuitous act. Most
companies would resort to dismissing employees at the instance of an
economic loss. However, Brittanica chose to retain their employees despite
its losses, only to be sued and be deprived of its right in the CBA to be given
a chance to settle a dispute via grievance machinery.