SAN MIGUEL FOODS, INC.
, petitioner,
vs.
SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION-
PTWGO, respondent.
FACTS:
Respondent, San Miguel Corporation Employees Union – PTWGO (the
Union), was the sole bargaining agent of all the monthly paid employees of petitioner
San Miguel Foods, Incorporated (SMFI). On November 9, 1992, some employees of
SMFI’s Finance Department, through the Union represented by Edgar Moraleda,
brought a grievance against Finance Manager Gideon Montesa (Montesa), for
"discrimination, favoritism, unfair labor practices, not flexible [sic], harassment,
promoting divisiveness and sectarianism, etc.," before SMFI Plant Operations Manager
George Nava in accordance with Step 1 of the grievance machinery adopted in the
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) forged by SMFI and the Union.
The Union sought the "1. review, evaluat[ion] & upgrad[ing of] all Finance staff
and 2. promot[ion of] G.Q. Montesa to other SMC affiliate[s] & subsidiaries."
At the grievance meeting held on January 14, 1993, SMFI informed the Union
that it planned to address the grievance through a "work management review" which
would be completed by March 1993, hence, it asked the finance personnel to give it
their attention and cooperation.
The "work management review" was not completed by March 1993, however,
prompting the Union to, on March 26, 1993, elevate the grievance to Step 2.
Almost nine months after the grievance meeting was held or on October 6, 1993,
SMFI rendered a "Decision on Step 1 Grievance" stating that it was still in the process of
completing the "work management review," hence, the Union’s requests could not be
granted.
ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT THE LABOR ARBITER HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE
COMPLAINT OF RESPONDENT UNION.
RULING:
The jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters, enumerated in Article 217 of the Labor
Code, includes complaints for ULP.
SMFI argues that the allegations in the Union’s complaint filed before the Labor
Arbiter do not establish a cause of action for ULP, the Union having merely contended
that SMFI was guilty thereof without specifying the ultimate facts upon which it was
based. It cites Section 1 of Rule 8 of the Rules of Court as applying suppletorily to the
proceedings before the Labor Arbiter, which Section reads:
Section 1. In general. – Every pleading shall contain in a methodical and logical
form, a plain concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the
party pleading relies for his claim . . .
Alleging that the Union failed to comply with this Rule, SMFI concludes that the
Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction over its complaint.
A perusal of the complaint shows that, indeed, the particular acts of ULP alleged
to have been committed by SMFI were not specified; neither were the ultimate facts in
support thereof. In its Position Paper, however, the Union detailed the particular acts of
ULP attributed to SMFI and the ultimate facts in support thereof.
Section 7, Rule V of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC provides:
Nature of Proceedings. – The proceedings before the Labor Arbiter shall be non-
litigious in nature. Subject to the requirements of due process, the technicalities
of law and procedure and the rules obtaining in the courts of law shall not
strictly apply thereto. The Labor Arbiter may avail himself of all reasonable
means to ascertain the facts of the controversy speedily, including ocular
inspection and examination of well-informed persons.
Section 1 of Rule 8 of the Rules of Court should thus not be strictly applied to a
case filed before a Labor Arbiter. In determining jurisdiction over a case, allegations
made in the complaint, as well as those in the position paper, may thus be considered.
