G.R. No. 101875 July 14, 1995
CASIANO A. NAVARRO III, petitioner, vs. HON. ISRAEL D. DAMASCO, in his capacity as VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR, and BUSCO SUGAR MILLING CO., INC., respondents.
QUIASON, J.:
FACTS:
At about 5:00 P.M. of November 27, 1990, petitioner Navarro went to visit Mercy Baylas, a co-employee, at the ladies' dormitory inside the compound of private respondent. Upon seeing petitioner, Baylas hid behind the divider at the reception room.
Rosemarie Basa and Isabel Beleno, co-boarders of Baylas, told petitioner that Baylas was not at the dormitory and advised him to stop courting her because she had no feelings towards him. Afterwards, the two left leaving petitioner alone in the room. When he peeped behind the divider, he saw Baylas, who stood up without answering his greetings and ran towards her room. He followed, and after taking hold of her left hand, pulled her towards him. The force caused her to fall on the floor. He then placed himself on top of her. She resisted and futilely struggled to free herself from his grasp.
Sonia Armada, the dormitory housekeeper, responded to Baylas' shouts for help. Armada saw petitioner embracing and kissing Baylas. She tried to separate petitioner from Baylas but to no avail. So she went outside and asked Basa and Beleno to help Baylas. She also asked the help of Edmundo Subong.
Basa and Beleno tried to pull petitioner away from Baylas, but it was Subong who was able to free Baylas from petitioner.
According to the medical report issued by Dr. Letecia P. Maraat, Baylas complained of pains on her shoulder and left foot.
On December 5, 1990, petitioner was informed of the complaint against him and was placed under preventive suspension. Nolito S. Densing, Jr. was instructed to investigate the incident. In his report dated December 26, 1990, Densing recommended that the maximum penalty be meted out against petitioner. On January 5, 1991, petitioner was dismissed from the service for having violated paragraph 3.B (Conduct and Behavior) of the Code of Employee Discipline.
On March 18, 1991, the President of the Mindanao Sugar Workers Union, for and in behalf of petitioner, and Jaime J. Javier, Personnel Officer of private respondent, agreed to submit the case of petitioner to voluntary arbitration.
DECISON OF LOWER COURTS:
*Voluntary Arbitrator: declared as valid the separation from employment of petitioner
Not satisfied with the decision, petitioner filed the instant petition in The SC, alleging
CASIANO A. NAVARRO III, petitioner, vs. HON. ISRAEL D. DAMASCO, in his capacity as VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR, and BUSCO SUGAR MILLING CO., INC., respondents.
QUIASON, J.:
FACTS:
At about 5:00 P.M. of November 27, 1990, petitioner Navarro went to visit Mercy Baylas, a co-employee, at the ladies' dormitory inside the compound of private respondent. Upon seeing petitioner, Baylas hid behind the divider at the reception room.
Rosemarie Basa and Isabel Beleno, co-boarders of Baylas, told petitioner that Baylas was not at the dormitory and advised him to stop courting her because she had no feelings towards him. Afterwards, the two left leaving petitioner alone in the room. When he peeped behind the divider, he saw Baylas, who stood up without answering his greetings and ran towards her room. He followed, and after taking hold of her left hand, pulled her towards him. The force caused her to fall on the floor. He then placed himself on top of her. She resisted and futilely struggled to free herself from his grasp.
Sonia Armada, the dormitory housekeeper, responded to Baylas' shouts for help. Armada saw petitioner embracing and kissing Baylas. She tried to separate petitioner from Baylas but to no avail. So she went outside and asked Basa and Beleno to help Baylas. She also asked the help of Edmundo Subong.
Basa and Beleno tried to pull petitioner away from Baylas, but it was Subong who was able to free Baylas from petitioner.
According to the medical report issued by Dr. Letecia P. Maraat, Baylas complained of pains on her shoulder and left foot.
On December 5, 1990, petitioner was informed of the complaint against him and was placed under preventive suspension. Nolito S. Densing, Jr. was instructed to investigate the incident. In his report dated December 26, 1990, Densing recommended that the maximum penalty be meted out against petitioner. On January 5, 1991, petitioner was dismissed from the service for having violated paragraph 3.B (Conduct and Behavior) of the Code of Employee Discipline.
On March 18, 1991, the President of the Mindanao Sugar Workers Union, for and in behalf of petitioner, and Jaime J. Javier, Personnel Officer of private respondent, agreed to submit the case of petitioner to voluntary arbitration.
DECISON OF LOWER COURTS:
*Voluntary Arbitrator: declared as valid the separation from employment of petitioner
Not satisfied with the decision, petitioner filed the instant petition in The SC, alleging
Baylas is his girlfriend.
ISSUE:
WON grievance procedure provided for in the Collective Bargaining Agreement was not followed and hence, the Voluntary Arbitrator exceeded his authority when he took cognizance of the labor case.
HELD:
1. NO, the separation was proper.
The instant case is not a grievance that must be submitted to the grievance machinery. What are subject of the grievance procedure for adjustment and resolution are grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the collective bargaining agreement.
Section 2, Article X of the Collective Bargaining Agreement specifies the instances when the grievance machinery may be availed of, thus:
Any protest or misunderstanding concerning any ruling, practice or working conditions in the Company, or any dispute arising as to the meaning, application or claim of violation of any provision of this Agreement or any complaint that any employee may have against the COMPANY shall constitute a grievance ( Rollo, p. 27).
The acts of petitioner involved a violation of the Code of Employee Discipline, particularly the provision penalizing the immoral conduct of employees. Consequently, there was no justification for petitioner to invoke the grievance machinery provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement
Petitioner alleges that the quarrel between Baylas and him was a purely private affair. We do not agree with this contention. It will be noted that not only did the incident happen within the company premises, i.e. the ladies' dormitory which was located inside the plant site, but both of them are employees of private respondent. Management would then be at the mercy of its employees if it cannot enforce discipline within company premises solely because the quarrel is purely personal matter. The harassment of an employee by a co-employee within the company premises even after office hours is a work-related matter considering that the peace of the company is thereby affected. The Code of Employee Discipline is very clear that immoral conduct "within the company premises regardless of whether or not [it is] committed during working time" is punishable.
The pretext of petitioner that he was merely helping Baylas is belied by the eyewitnesses. Petitioner admitted that it took Subong to pull him away from Baylas. His alleged act of chivalry is nothing more than a chance to gratify his amorous feelings.
ISSUE:
WON grievance procedure provided for in the Collective Bargaining Agreement was not followed and hence, the Voluntary Arbitrator exceeded his authority when he took cognizance of the labor case.
HELD:
1. NO, the separation was proper.
The instant case is not a grievance that must be submitted to the grievance machinery. What are subject of the grievance procedure for adjustment and resolution are grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the collective bargaining agreement.
Section 2, Article X of the Collective Bargaining Agreement specifies the instances when the grievance machinery may be availed of, thus:
Any protest or misunderstanding concerning any ruling, practice or working conditions in the Company, or any dispute arising as to the meaning, application or claim of violation of any provision of this Agreement or any complaint that any employee may have against the COMPANY shall constitute a grievance ( Rollo, p. 27).
The acts of petitioner involved a violation of the Code of Employee Discipline, particularly the provision penalizing the immoral conduct of employees. Consequently, there was no justification for petitioner to invoke the grievance machinery provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement
Petitioner alleges that the quarrel between Baylas and him was a purely private affair. We do not agree with this contention. It will be noted that not only did the incident happen within the company premises, i.e. the ladies' dormitory which was located inside the plant site, but both of them are employees of private respondent. Management would then be at the mercy of its employees if it cannot enforce discipline within company premises solely because the quarrel is purely personal matter. The harassment of an employee by a co-employee within the company premises even after office hours is a work-related matter considering that the peace of the company is thereby affected. The Code of Employee Discipline is very clear that immoral conduct "within the company premises regardless of whether or not [it is] committed during working time" is punishable.
The pretext of petitioner that he was merely helping Baylas is belied by the eyewitnesses. Petitioner admitted that it took Subong to pull him away from Baylas. His alleged act of chivalry is nothing more than a chance to gratify his amorous feelings.
2. Navarro is already estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the Voluntary Arbitrator.
The case of petitioner was submitted to voluntary arbitration by agreement of the president of the labor union to which petitioner belongs, and his employer, through its personnel officer. Petitioner himself voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the Voluntary Arbitrator when he, through his counsel, filed his position paper with the Voluntary Arbitrator and even submitted additional documentary evidence. In addition thereto, during the initial conference on March 27, 1991, the parties manifested that they were not questioning the authority of the Voluntary Arbitrator.
No comments:
Post a Comment