Estate of Dulay vs Aboitiz Jebsen Maritime Inc

JUNE 13, 2012 | J. PERALTA

Nelson Dulay employed by General Charterers Inc, subsidiary of Aboitiz Jebsen Maritime

seaman -> bosun (contractual)

detailed in Ps vessel, MV Kickapoo Belle
25 days after completion of employment contract, Nelson died of acute renal failure secondary to
septicemia

at time of death, member of AMOSUP, GCIs collective bargaining agent

his widow Merridy Jane claimed for death benefits through the grievance procedure of the CBA
between AMOSUP and GCI

Jan 29, 2001 - grievance procedure declared deadlocked and P refused to grant benefits sought by
Merridy Jane
Merridy Jane filed complaint with NLRC in Gen San against GCI for death, medical benefits and
damages
Joven Mar, Nelsons bro, received P20K from R pursuant to Art 20(a)2 of CBA and signed a
certification acknowledging receipt of amount, releasing AMOSUP from further liability
Accdg to Merridy Jane, she is entitlted to $90K and the P20K received should be considered
advance payment of the 90
R ARG: NLRC no jurisdiction aver action because no EER between GCI and Nelson at time of his
death; also Nelson had no claims against P for sick leave allowance/medical benefit because he
completed his contract with GCI. Merridy Jane not entitled to death benefits because Aboitiz are
only liable for that when the seafarer died during term of his contract and the cause of death is not
work-related. P admitted liability only with respect to Art 20(A)2 of CBA which they said was already
discharged
LA: ruled in favor of Merridy Jane

ordered Aboitiz to pay P4,621,300

ruled that proximate cause of Nelsons death not work related
On appeal, NLRC affirmed LA decision but reversed ruling as to proximate cause of Nelsons death
Aboitiz raised it to the CA
CA: petition granted and case referred to NCMB for designation of VA

while suit of Merridy Jane is a money claim, it involves an interpretation of a CBA -> jurisdiction
belongs to VA and not LA

ISSUE: W/N CA committed error in ruling that LA has no jurisdiction over the case
P ARG: RA 8042, Sec 10 - vests jurisdiction on appropriate branches of NLRC to entertain
disputes re: interpretation of CBA involving migrant/overseas filipino workers

said section amended Art 217(c) of the LC which confers jurisdiction upon VA over

interpretation/implementation of CBA and interpretation/enforcement of company personnel

policies

R ARG: Art 217(c) and Art 261 remain to be governing w/ respect to unresolved grievances arising
from the interpretation/implementation of CBA

jurisdiction with VA
RULING: No error in CA ruling that VA has jurisdiction over instant case
No specific provision in RA 8042 that provides for jurisdiction over disputes/unresolved grievances
regarding interpretation/implementation of a CBA

Sec 10 just talks about claims arising from EER or by virtue of any law/contract involving

Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other
forms of damages

Art 217(c) and 261 of LC are specific in saying VA have jurisdiction over cases arising from
interpretation/implementation of CBA
APPLICATION: Merridy Jane raised this particular issue - which provision of the subject CBA
applies insofar as death benefits due to the heirs of Nelson are concerned. Court agrees with CA
that the issue involves and interpretation/implementation of the said CBA. LC governs.
Even in the CBA actually (Art 13.1) provides that in case of dispute/conflict in the interpretation of
the provisions of the CBA, it shall be settled through negotiation, conciliation or voluntary arbitration

settled that when the parties have validly agreed on a procedure for resolving grievances and to
submit a dispute to voluntary arbitration then that procedure should be strictly observed

Said provisions of the CBA are also in line with Rule VII, Sec 7 of Omnibus Rules and Regulations
Implementing Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, as amended by RA 10022

with CBA, case to be submitted for voluntary arbitration in accordance with Art 261 and 262 of
LC

Sec 29 of Standard Terms and Conditions governing employment of Filipino seafarers on Board
ocean going vessels promulgated by POEA also provides that in cases of claims/disputes covered
by CBA, shall be submitted to original and exclusive jurisdiction of the VA or a panel of arbitrators
Its only in the absence of CBA that parties may opt to submit dispute to either NLRC or to
voluntary arbitration.