(PHILEC) V.

CA

Facts:
PHILEC, a domestic corporation, and its rank-and-file employees were governed by collective bargaining
agreements (CBA) providing for the step increases in employee’s basic salary in case of promotion.

The CBA expired and PHILEC selected Lipio for promotion from Machinist under Pay Grade VII to
Foreman I under Pay Grade B and will be payed training allowance for his training for the said position.

Ignacio was also selected to undergo for the same position and will be payed also the training allowance.

Later, PHILEC and PWU entered into a new CBA and they stipulated that a rank-and-file employee
promoted shall be entitled increases in his/her basic salary.

Lipio and Ignacio claimed that the training allowance did not conform to the CBA, so PWU submitted the
grievance to the grievance machinery but PWU and PHILEC failed to settle the grievance.

Thus, the parties submitted the issue with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) and
they designated Jimez as the voluntary arbitrator (VA).

The parties were then asked to submit their respective position papers.

PWU maintained that PHILEC failed to follow the schedule of step increases under the CBA and for its
failure to follow the step, PHILEC committed an unfair labor practice under Article 248 of the Labor Code.

PHILEC, on the other hand, said that it applied the ‘Modified SGV’ pay grade scale in computing their
training allowance and that Lipio and Ignacio were promoted when PWU had not yet negotiated a new
CBA.

PHILEC argued that even assuming that it violated the CBA, the violation was not gross or flagrant,
hence, it was not guilty of unfair labor practice.

The VA ruled in favor of PWU and said that the new CBA being the law between the parties, PHILEC
should have computed Lipio and Ignacio’s training allowance based on it.

PHILEC filed a motion for reconsideration (MR) but the same was denied by the VA. PHILEC then filed a
petition for certiori before the CA alleging that the VA gravely abused his discretion in rendering the
assailed decision. But CA affirmed the VA’s decision and dismissed the petition for lack of merit. PHILEC
filed a MR which was also denied by the CA. Subsequently, PHILEC filed a petition for review on certiorari
with the SC.

Issue:
Whether PHILEC correctly resorted to petition for certiorari under Rule 65 after the MR was denied by the
VA

Held:
No. The proper remedy to reverse or modify a VA’s decision or award is to appeal the award or decision
before the CA under Rule 43 pursuant to Sec 1 and 3 of the Rules of Court. The VA, whether acting
solely or in a panel, enjoys in law the status of a quasi-judicial agency but independent of and apart from
NLRC since his decisions are not appealable to the latter. Hence, being a quasi-judicial agency, a
decision or award of a VA is appealable before the CA. The CA has the exclusive original jurisdiction over
decisions and awards of quasi-judicial agencies and instrumentalities. The appeal must be within the
period of 10 days from receipt of the copy of the award or decision by the parties as provided for under
Article 262-A of the Labor Code although Rule 43 provides 15-day period to appeal.

SC said that Rules of court are subordinate to the statute and in case of conflict, the statute will prevail.
Being provided in the statute, the 10-day period must be complied with, otherwise, no appeallate court will
have jurisdiction over the appeal. Should the party choose to file a motion for reconsideration with the VA,
the motion must also be filed within the 10-day period since a motion is filed within the period for taking
an appeal.

There being no appeal seasonably filed in the present case, VA’s decision became final and executory
after 10 calendar days from PHILEC’s receipt of the resolution denying its motion for reconsideration. The
decision is already beyond the purview of the court to act upon.