Scribd
Upload
127 views2 pages

Estate of Dulay Vs Aboitiz Digest

This document is a summary of a court case regarding a claim for death benefits by the widow of Nelson Dulay against his former employers Aboitiz Jebsen Maritime Inc. and General Charterers Inc. [1] Nelson Dulay worked for General Charterers Inc. from 1986 until his death in 2000 from renal failure. [2] His widow Merridy Jane claimed $90,000 in death benefits pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement between her late husband's union and the company. [3] However, the company refused to pay, arguing there was no employer-employee relationship at the time of death as his contract had ended. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court ultimately ruled the

Uploaded by

Gui Esh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
127 views2 pages

Estate of Dulay Vs Aboitiz Digest

This document is a summary of a court case regarding a claim for death benefits by the widow of Nelson Dulay against his former employers Aboitiz Jebsen Maritime Inc. and General Charterers Inc. [1] Nelson Dulay worked for General Charterers Inc. from 1986 until his death in 2000 from renal failure. [2] His widow Merridy Jane claimed $90,000 in death benefits pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement between her late husband's union and the company. [3] However, the company refused to pay, arguing there was no employer-employee relationship at the time of death as his contract had ended. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court ultimately ruled the

Uploaded by

Gui Esh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

ESTATE OF NELSON R. DULAY, represented by his wife MERRIDY JANE P.

DULAY,
Petitioner,
- versus –
ABOITIZ JEBSEN MARITIME, INC. and GENERAL CHARTERERS, INC.,
Respondents.

THIRD DIVISION, Justice J. Peralta

FACTS:
 Nelson R. Dulay was employed by General Charterers Inc. (GCI), a subsidiary of co-petitioner Aboitiz Jebsen Maritime
Inc. since 1986.
 He initially worked as an ordinary seaman and later as bosun on a contractual basis. From September 3, 1999
up to July 19, 2000, Nelson was detailed in petitioners’ vessel, the MV Kickapoo Belle.
 After the completion of his employment contract, Nelson died due to acute renal failure secondary to septicemia.
 At the time of his death, Nelson was a bona fide member of the Associated Marine Officers and Seaman’s Union of the
Philippines (AMOSUP), GCI’s collective bargaining agent.
 Nelson’s widow, Merridy Jane, thereafter claimed for death benefits through the grievance procedure of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between AMOSUP and GCI.
 However, the grievance procedure was “declared deadlocked” as petitioners refused to grant the benefits sought by the
widow. Merridy Jane filed a complaint with the NLRC Sub-Regional Arbitration Board in General Santos City against GCI
for death and medical benefits and damages.
 The amount claimed by Nelson’s widow is $90,000 however GCI awarded P20,000 in favor of the deceased’s brother.
Merridy claims the remaining amount less the P20,000 her brother-in-law received.
 Respondent on the other hand refused to award the same on the ground that there is no employer-employee relationship
between GC and Nelson at the time of his death. His contract with respondent was already completed upon his death.
 The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner, ordering respondents to pay the $90,000 death benefits less the P20,000
already received.
 NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter during appeal. When the matter was brought before the Court of Appeals
for certiorari, the CA granted the petition and referred the case to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB)
for the designation of the Voluntary Arbitrator. The CA ruled that since the case involve interpretation of the CBA, the
Voluntary Arbitrator has jurisdiction and not the CA.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction over the case. YES, the Voluntary Arbitrator must take cognizance of the
case.

RULING:
The Court agrees with the CA in holding that this issue clearly involves the interpretation or implementation of the said
CBA. Thus, the specific or special provisions of the Labor Code govern. Articles 217(c) and 261 of the Labor Code are very specific
in stating that voluntary arbitrators have jurisdiction over cases arising from the interpretation or implementation of collective
bargaining agreements.

In any case, the Court agrees with petitioner's contention that the CBA is the law or contract between the parties. Article
13.1 of the CBA entered into by and between respondent GCI and AMOSUP, the union to which petitioner belongs, provides as
follows:

The Company and the Union agree that in case of dispute or conflict in the interpretation or application of any of the
provisions of this Agreement, or enforcement of Company policies, the same shall be settled through negotiation,
conciliation or voluntary arbitration.

In the same manner, Section 29 of the prevailing Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers
on Board Ocean Going Vessels, promulgated by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), provides as follows:

Section 29. Dispute Settlement Procedures. − In cases of claims and disputes arising from this employment, the parties
covered by a collective bargaining agreement shall submit the claim or dispute to the original and exclusive jurisdiction of
the voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators.

It is clear from the above that the interpretation of the DOLE, in consultation with their counterparts in the respective
committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives, as well as the DFA and the POEA is that with respect to disputes
involving claims of Filipino seafarers wherein the parties are covered by a CBA, the dispute or claim should be submitted to the
jurisdiction of a voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators. It is only in the absence of a CBA that parties may opt to submit the
dispute to either the NLRC or to voluntary arbitration.

On the basis of the foregoing, the Court finds no error in the ruling of the CA that the voluntary arbitrator has jurisdiction over the
instant case.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy