Facts:

USTFUs claims arose from USTs alleged failure to contribute the correct amounts to the fund
during the 1996-2001 CBA. On 6 February 2007, USTFU sent a demand letter to UST Rector Fr. Arceo
for the claimed hospitalization and medical benefits contained in the 1996-2001 CBA were a one-time
give, and not to be given annually. USTFU then sent UST another demand letter reiterating its position
that UST is obliged to remit to the fund, not only for the years 1996-1997 but also for the subsequent
years, but to no avail.

On September 6, 2007, USTFU filed against UST a complaint for unfair labor practice before the
LA. UST contented that the case falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the voluntary arbitrator or panel
of voluntary arbitrators because it involves the interpretation and implementation of the provisions of the
CBA; and the conflict between the parties must be resolved as grievance under the CBA and not as unfair
labor practice.

On August 8, 2008, USTs motion to dismiss was denied by the LA. UST appealed the order to the
NLRC which dismissed the appeal and remanded the case to the LA for further proceedings.

On September 24, 2010, LA ordered UST to remit 18 million pesos to the hospitalization and
medical benefits funds pursuant to the 1996-2001 CBA. USTFU filed a Memorandum of Partial Appeal
from the LAs decision claiming that LA erred in ruling that UST is only liable to the amount of 18
million pesos diminishing their claim that as of 2011, USTs total liability to the fund is 97 million pesos.
UST filed an Appeal Memorandum and claimed that the LA committed grave abuse of discretion for
deciding over the case because the issue is within the jurisdiction of the voluntary arbitrator and for
making a mistake in its interpretation of the CBA and failed to consider that the USTFUs claims are
already barred by prescription.

NLRC granted USTFUs appeal and ordered UST to pay 80 million pesos for the fund pursuant
to the CBA. NLRC pointed out that USTs refusal to comply with the CBA economic provisions will
result to a gross and flagrant violation thus, making the present case fall under LAs jurisdiction as well as
the NLRCs appellate jurisdiction. UST filed a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC decision and
claimed that the VA and not LA had jurisdiction over the interpretation of the CBA stating that the 80
million pesos award had no basis.

UST filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the
CA. UST still questioned the jurisdiction as well as the award and also claimed that USTFUs money
claims are barred by prescription. USTFU on the other hand filed a comment before the CA claiming that
certiorari is not a proper remedy for UST because the NLRC did not commit any grave abuse of
discretion.

On July 13, 2012, CA granted USTs petition and found grave abuse of discretion on the part of
NLRC since USTFUs ultimate objective is to clarify the relevant items in the CBA, then USTFUs
complaint should have been filed with the voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators. The CA
set aside the decisions of NLRC and LA, without prejudice to the refilling of USTFUs complaint in the
proper forum. CA denied USTFUs motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.

USTFU filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court on 7 December 2012.

Issue:

Whether or not the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction over the case involving the interpretation and
implementation of the provisions of the CBA.


Ruling:
The SC affirmed with modification the ruling of the CA as regards to the issue of
jurisdiction. In the present case, USTFU alleged that UST committed unfair labor practice in its violation
of the 1996-2001 CBA, and subsequently, the 2001-2006 and 2006-1011 CBAs. LA assumed jurisdiction
but ruled that UST did not commit any ULP. The NLRC on the other hand, ruled that there was indeed
ULP. The CA ruled that the LA and NLRC did not have jurisdiction as there was no unfair labor practice
because the misunderstanding of the parties arose solely from their differing interpretations of the CBAs
provision on economic benefits, specifically the fund. Article 217 of the Labor Code provides that the
Labor Arbiter shall refer to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration as provided in the CBA
those cases that involve the interpretation of said agreements. Article 261 of the Labor Code further
provides that all unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the CBA,
including violations of said agreement, are under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the voluntary
arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators. USTFUs refusal to consider voluntary arbitration ignores
Article 261 to 262-A of the Labor Code, as well as Steps III and IV of Section 3 of the 1996-2001 CBA.

USTFU filed its complaint under the theory of unfair labor practice. USTFU had one year provided in
Article 290 of the Labor Code from USTs alleged failure to contribute the correct amount to the fund.
USTFU had one year for every alleged breach by UST: SY 1997-1998, 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2000-
2001, 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. USTFU did not file any complaint within the respective one-year
prescriptive periods. USTFU decided to file its complaint only in 2007, several years after the accrual of
its several possible causes of action. Even if USTFU filed its complaint under the theory of money claims
from employer-employee relations, its cause of action still has prescribed since Article 291 of the Labor
Code provides that money claims arising from employer-employee relations prescribe within 3 years from
the time the cause of action accrued; otherwise they shall be forever barred.

USTFUs claim that USTs contributions should have been cumulative, and should be carried over to the
succeeding years and is chargeable to the to the tuition fee increment is not supported by the economic
provisions of the 1996-2001 CBA and the 1999 Memorandum Agreement. The Court stated that they
agree with USTs interpretation of the economic provisions of 1996-2011 CBAs as well as its
remittances to the fund for the covered periods and that UST faithfully followed the clear provisions of
these agreements because the CBA provisions pertaining to the fund are clear and should be interpreted
according to their literal meaning.

Supreme Court denied the petition and declared that the claims of the USTFU have prescribed and that
there is no carry-over provision for the Hospitalization and Medical benefits fund in the 1996-2001 CBA
and in the 1999 MOA. The carry-over provision for the fund is found only in the 2001-2006 and 2006-
2011 CBA.