Republic of the Philippines
Court of Appeals
3rd Division
Manila
VCO Hotel &
Resorts Corp
Petitioner,
-versus-
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION, Public Respondent,
VCO HRC
EMPLOYEES UNION,
LANZ AIDAN
OLIVES as Private
Respondents.
PETITION
PETITIONER, by counsel respectfully
submits that:
1.
Petitioner
is a domestic corporation organized under the laws of the Philippines, with
principal address at 1 Aseana Avenue, Paranaque, Metro Manila. The private
respondents, on the other hand, are VCO HRC Employees Union, the certified
collective bargaining unit of the petitioner-company, and Lanz Aidan Olives, an
employee of the company.
2.
This
is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision
of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dated March 31, 2016
affirming the Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated September 30, 2015 which ruled
that petitioner is guilty of unfair labor practice for violation of the
collective bargaining agreement.
3.
The
present petition stemmed as follows: The petitioner company and the respondent
union entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Section 16 of the
said CBA provides that, “the relatives of the employees shall be entitled to a
10% discount on rooms and restaurant of the company upon presentation of the
employee’s identification card and the employee’s relative’s identification
card.” Pursuant to the said provision of the CBA, Lanz Aidan L. Olives, an
employee of the company and a member of the union, availed of this benefit on
February 14, 2015 and invited his aunt and uncle to check in at VCO Hotel and
Resort for them to celebrate their 25th anniversary there. When
Olives presented his identification card and his aunt and uncle’s, the company
refused to grant them the 10% discount. Since the aunt and uncle of Olives only
brought exact amount of money, they were forced to leave the hotel premises
humiliated. The next day, Olives and the company union filed an unfair labor
practice complaint against the company for violation of the CBA. The primary
defense of the company was that the “relative” contemplated in the CBA includes
immediate family members only and hence, shall only be applicable to father,
mother, brother, and sister of the employee. Secondly, such issue shall first
be referred to the grievance machinery and thereafter, to the Voluntary
Arbitrators. Both the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) found that the petitioner company is guilty of unfair labor practice.
4.
The
petitioner company consistently contends that pursuant to Art. 273 of the Labor
Code and their CBA, all issues arising from the CBA shall be referred to first
before the grievance machinery and after such, may be elevated to the Voluntary
Arbitrators. It is further provided by the Article 274 of the Labor Code that,
“The Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of
Voluntary Arbitrators shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear
and decide all unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation
of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and those arising from the
interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies referred to in the
immediately preceding article. Accordingly, violations of a Collective Bargaining
Agreement, except those which are gross in character, shall no longer be treated
as unfair labor practice and shall be resolved as grievances under the
Collective Bargaining Agreement.” Hence, the Labor Arbiter and NLRC acted
without jurisdiction when it took cognizance of the unfair labor practice
complaint filed by Olives and VCO HRC Employees Union.
5.
There
is no appeal from such decision or any plain or speedy remedy in the ordinary
course of law, except this petition.
6.
A
certified true copy of the Decision of the NLRC under review is attached.
Paranaque
City, April 21, 2016.
ATTY. MICHELLE
A. VALE CRUZ
Counsel for Petitioner
Vale Cruz & Associates Law Firm
117 Gamboa St., San Lorenzo, Paranaque
VERIFICATION AND
CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING
Republic
of the Philippines
(City
of Paranaque ) S.S.
I, NESTOR LEYNES III, of legal age, the
incumbent President of VCO Hotel and Resort Corporation, after having been duly
sworn in accordance with law, depose and state that:
1.
I am the authorized representative of the complainant in the above-stated case;
2.
I caused the preparation of the foregoing complaint;
3.
I have received a copy of the Decision of the NLRC on April 1, 2016.
4.
I have read the contents thereof and the facts stated therein are true and correct
of my personal knowledge and/or on the basis of copies of documents and records
in my possession;
5.
I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues
in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency;
6.
To the best of my knowledge and belief, no such action or proceeding is pending
in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency;
7.
If I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed
or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other
tribunal or agency, I undertake to report that fact within five (5) days
therefrom to this Honorable Court.
__________________
NESTOR LEYNESS III
No comments:
Post a Comment