LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK, petitioner, vs. ASSOCIATION OF LUZON DEVELOPMENTBANK EMPLOYEES and ATTY. ESTER S.GARCIA in her capacity as VOLUNTARYARBITRATOR, respondentsG.R. No. 120319October 6, 1995

Facts:From a submission agreement of the Luzon Development Bank (LDB) and theAssociation ofLuzon Development Bank Employees (ALDBE) arose an arbitration case to resolve the following issue: whether or not the company has violated the Collective Bargaining Agreementprovision and the Memorandum of Agreement dated April1994, on promotion.At a conference, the parties agreed on the submission of their respective Position Paperson December 1-15, 1994. Atty. Ester S. Garcia in hercapacity as Voluntary Arbitrator, receivedALDBE's Position Paper on January 18, 1995.LDB, on the other hand, failed to submit its Position Paper despite a letter from the Voluntary Arbitrator reminding them to do so.As of May 23, 1995 noPosition Paper had been filed by LDB. On May 24, 1995,without LDB's Position Paper, theVoluntary Arbitratorrendered a decisiondisposing as follows: WHEREFORE, finding ishereby made that the Bank has not adhered to theCollective Bargaining Agreement provision nor the Memorandum of Agreement onpromotion. Hence, this petition for certiorari andprohibition seeking to set aside the decisionof the Voluntary Arbitrator and to prohibit her from enforcing the same.Issue:Which court has the jurisdiction for the appellate review of adjudications of allquasi-judicial entities.Held:Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7902, provides that the Courtof Appeals shallexercise:

(B) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all finaljudgments, decisions, resolutions, orders orawards of Regional Trial Courts andquasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards orcommissions, including the Securities andExchange Commission, the Employees Compensation Commission and the CivilService Commission, except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of theSupreme Courtin accordance with the Constitution, the LaborCode of thePhilippines under PresidentialDecree No. 442, as amended, the provisions ofthis Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the thirdparagraph and subparagraph (4) of the fourthparagraph of Section 17 of theJudiciary Act of1948.The voluntary arbitrator no less performs a state function pursuant to agovernmental powerdelegated to him under the provisions there for in the Labor Code and he falls, therefore, within the contemplation of theterm "instrumentality" in the afore quoted Sec. 9 of B.P. 129. The fact that his functions and powers are provided for in the Labor Code does not placehim within the exceptions to said Sec. 9 sincehe is a quasi-judicial instrumentality as contemplated thereinA fortiori, the decision or award of the voluntary arbitrator or panel ofarbitrators should likewise be appealable to the Court ofAppeals, in line with the procedure outlined in RevisedAdministrative Circular No.1-95, just like those of thequasi-judicial agencies, boards and commissions enumerated therein. This would be in furtherance of, and consistent with, the original purpose of Circular No. 1-91 to provide a uniform procedure for the appellate review of adjudications of allquasi-judicial entities not expressly excepted from the coverage of Sec. 9 of B.P. 129by either the Constitution or another statute. In the same vein, it is worth mentioning that under Section 22 ofRepublic Act No. 876, also known as theArbitration Law, arbitration is deemed a special proceeding of which the court specified in the contract or submission, or if none be specified, the Regional Trial Court for the province or city in which one of theparties resides or is doing business, or in which the arbitration is held, shall have jurisdiction. A party to the controversy may, at any time within one (1) month after anaward is made, apply to the court having jurisdiction foran order confirming the award and the court must grant such order unless the award is vacated, modified or corrected. In effect, this equates the award or decision ofthe voluntary arbitrator with that ofthe regional trial court. Consequently, in a petition forcertiorari from that award ordecision,ACCORDINGLY, theCourt resolved toREFER this case to the Court of Appeals.