BVR & ASSOCIATES
  • HOME
  • OUR SERVICES
    • BUSINESS REGISTRATION
    • BACK OFFICE SUPPORT SERVICES
    • PAYROLL SERVICES
    • TAX COMPLIANCE & ACCOUNTING
    • BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING
    • TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
    • VIRTUAL ASSISTANT
    • CALL CENTER SERVICES
  • ARTICLES
    • TESTIMONIALS
    • BLOG
  • CONTACT US

a collections of case digests and laws that can help aspiring law students to become a lawyer


Negros Metal Corp. vs. Lamayo, August 25, 2010

8/7/2022

0 Comments

 
Facts:
Armelo J. Lamayo began working for Negros Metal Corporation as a machinist. Sometime in May 2002, while Lamayo was at the company's foundry grinding some tools he was using, the company manager, called his attention why he was using the grinder there to which he replied that since the machine there  was bigger, he would finish his work faster. Lamayo's explanation was found unsatisfactory, hence, he was, via memorandum, charged of loitering and warned.
 
Taking the warning as a three-day suspension as penalized under company rules, Lamayo reported for work after three days, only to be meted with another 10-day suspension. After serving the second suspension, Lamayo reported for work but was informed that his services had been terminated and that he should draft his resignation letter. Thus, Lamayo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter however it was opposed by Negros Metal contending that the complaint should be dismissed because the Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction over it since, under their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), such matters must first be brought before the company's grievance machinery.

Issue:
Whether the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction over the dispute.

​Held: 
Yes. Under Art. 217 of the Labor Code, it is clear that a labor arbiter has original and exclusive jurisdiction over termination disputes. On the other hand, under Article 261, a voluntary arbitrator has original and exclusive jurisdiction over grievances arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company policies. As a general rule then, termination disputes should be brought before a labor arbiter, except when the parties, under Art. 262, unmistakably express that they agree to submit the same to voluntary arbitration.
In the present case, the CBA provision on grievance machinery being invoked by petitioner does not expressly state that termination disputes are included in the ambit of what may be brought before the company's grievance machinery.  Thus, the matter of suspension of an employee was under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the labor arbiter.

0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    May 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    March 2018

    Categories

    All
    Agrarian Law
    Articles-of-incorporation
    By-laws
    Constitutional Law
    Criminal Law
    Law
    Persons And Family Relations

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
  • HOME
  • OUR SERVICES
    • BUSINESS REGISTRATION
    • BACK OFFICE SUPPORT SERVICES
    • PAYROLL SERVICES
    • TAX COMPLIANCE & ACCOUNTING
    • BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING
    • TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
    • VIRTUAL ASSISTANT
    • CALL CENTER SERVICES
  • ARTICLES
    • TESTIMONIALS
    • BLOG
  • CONTACT US