Luzon Development Bank v Association of Luzon Devt Bank Employees

Facts: From a submission agreement of the LDB and the Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees
(ALDBE) arose an arbitration case to resolve the following issue: Whether or not the company has violated the CBA
provision and the MOA on promotion. At a conference, the parties agreed on the submission of their respective
Position Papers. Atty. Garcia, in her capacity as Voluntary Arbitrator, received ALDBEs Position Paper; LDB,
on the other hand, failed to submit its Position Paper despite a letter from the Voluntary Arbitrator reminding them
to do so. As of May 23, 1995 no Position Paper had been filed by LDB. Without LDBs Position Paper, the
Voluntary Arbitrator rendered a decision disposing as follows: WHEREFORE, finding is hereby made that the
Bank has not adhered to the CBA provision nor the MOA on promotion. Hence, this petition
for certiorari and prohibition seeking to set aside the decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator and to prohibit her
from enforcing the same.

Issue: W/N a voluntary arbiters decision is appealable to the CA and not the SC

Ruling: An award of the voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators should be appealable to the Court of Appeals, in
line with the procedure just like those of the quasi-judicial agencies, boards and commissions enumerated therein.

This would be in consistent with the original purpose of Circular No. 1-91 to provide a uniform procedure for the
appellate review of adjudications of all quasi-judicial entities. not expressly excepted from the coverage of Sec. 9 of
B.P. 129 by either the Constitution or another statute. Nor will it run counter to the legislative intendment that
decisions of the NLRC be reviewable directly by the Supreme Court since, precisely, the cases within the
adjudicative competence of the voluntary arbitrator are excluded from the jurisdiction of the NLRC or the labor
arbiter.

In the same vein, it is worth mentioning that under Section 22 of Republic Act No. 876, also known as the
Arbitration Law, arbitration is deemed a special proceeding of which the court specified in the contract or
submission, or if none be specified, the Regional Trial Court for the province or city in which one of the parties
resides or is doing business, or in which the arbitration is held, shall have jurisdiction. A party to the controversy
may, at any time within one (1) month after an award is made, apply to the court having jurisdiction for an order
confirming the award and the court must grant such order unless the award is vacated, modified or corrected.

In effect, this equates the award or decision of the voluntary arbitrator with that of the regional trial court.
Consequently, in a petition for certiorari from that award or decision, the Court of Appeals must be deemed
to have concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court. As a matter of policy, this Court shall remand to
the Court of Appeals petitions of this nature for proper disposition.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to REFER this case to the Court of Appeals.

Republic v CA

Facts: The RTC of Manila, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the petitioner's complaint for a declaration of illegality
of the strike of the private respondents and to restrain the same. The Court of Appeals denied the petitioner's petition
for certiorari, hence, this petition for review.

The National Parks Development Committee was created originally as an Executive Committee for the development
of the Quezon Memorial, Luneta and other national parks (E.O No. 30). It was later designated as the National Parks
Development Committee (NPDC) (E.O. No. 69).Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos and Teodoro F. Valencia were designated
Chairman and Vice- Chairman respectively (E.O. No. 3). Despite an attempt to transfer it to the Bureau of Forest
Development, Department of Natural Resources, the NPDC has remained under the Office of the President The
annual appropriations decrees listed NPDC as a regular government agency under the Office of the President and
allotments for its maintenance and operating expenses were issued direct to NPDC.
Issue: W/N the petitioner, National Parks Development Committee (NPDC), is a government agency, or a private
corporation, for on this issue depends the right of its employees to strike.

Ruling: While NPDC employees are allowed under the 1987 Constitution to organize and join unions of their
choice, there is as yet no law permitting them to strike. In case of a labor dispute between the employees and the
government, Section 15 of Executive Order No. 180 provides that the Public Sector Labor- Management Council,
not the Department of Labor and Employment, shall hear the dispute. Clearly, the Court of Appeals and the lower
court erred in holding that the labor dispute between the NPDC and the members of the NPDSA is cognizable by the
Department of Labor and Employment.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is granted. The decision of the Court of Appeals is set aside. The private
respondents' complaint should be filed in the Public Sector Labor-Management Council as provided in Section 15 of
Executive Order No. 180. Costs against the private respondents.

SSS v CA

Facts: The SSS filed with the RTC of Quezon City a complaint for damages with a writ of preliminary
injunction against petitioners, alleging that the officers and members of SSSEA staged an illegal strike
and barricaded the entrances to the SSS Building, preventing non-striking employees from reporting for
work and SSS members from transacting business with the SSS; that the strike was reported to the
Public Sector Labor - Management Council, which ordered the strikers to return to work; that the strikers
refused to return to work; and that the SSS suffered damages as a result of the strike. The complaint
prayed that a writ of preliminary injunction be issued to enjoin the strike and that the strikers be ordered to
return to work; that the defendants (petitioners herein) be ordered to pay damages; and that the strike be
declared illegal.

It appears that the SSSEA went on strike after the SSS failed to act on the union's demands, which
included: implementation of the provisions of the old SSS-SSSEA collective bargaining agreement (CBA)
on check-off of union dues; payment of accrued overtime pay, night differential pay and holiday pay;
conversion of temporary or contractual employees with six (6) months or more of service into regular and
permanent employees and their entitlement to the same salaries, allowances and benefits given to other
regular employees of the SSS; and payment of the children's allowance of P30.00, and after the SSS
deducted certain amounts from the salaries of the employees and allegedly committed acts of
discrimination and unfair labor practices.

Issue: W/N the employees of the SSS have the right to strike?

Ruling: Employees of SSS is covered by the probation against strikes. Considering that under the 1987
Constitution "The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the
Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters" [Art. IX(B),
Sec. .2(l) see also Sec. 1 of E.O. No. 180 where the employees in the civil service are denominated as
"government employees"] and that the SSS is one such government-controlled corporation with an
original charter, its employees are part of the civil service and are covered by the Civil Service
Commission's memorandum prohibiting strikes. This being the case, the strike staged by the
employees of the SSS was illegal.

WHEREFORE, no reversible error having been committed by the Court of Appeals, the instant petition for
review is hereby DENIED and the decision of the appellate court is AFFIRMED. Petitioners'
"Petition/Application for Preliminary and Mandatory Injunction" dated December 13,1988 is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.