January 13, 2013
Jerry E. Acedera, Antonio Parilla, petitioners
International Container Terminal Services, Inv., NLRC, and CA, respondents
Ponente: Carpio-Morales, J.
Topic: Rights of a Legitimate Labor Organization
SUMMARY:
The employees union APCWU filed a complaint against its employer, ICTSI, in relation to a dispute about the divisor to be used in the computation of wages. Fearing that APCWU was not handling the case as diligently as it should on account of the union's alleged "sweetheart" relationship with ICTSI, some officers and members of the union (Acedera, et al.) filed a motion to intervene. The Court held that there was no need to intervene because Acedera, et al. were already well represented by APCWU. Acedera, et al. also failed to prove fraud or collusion or lack of good faith on the part of APCWU.
DOCTRINE:
A union may act as the representative of its members for the purpose of collective bargaining. This authority includes the power to represent its members for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the CBA. For a member of a union to be permitted to intervene in a representative action, fraud or collusion or lack of good faith on the part of the union must be proven. It must be based on facts borne on record; mere assertions do not suffice.
FACTS:
Beginning September 1990, the CBA between International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI) and Associated Port Checkers & Workers Union-International Container Terminal Services, Inc. Local Chapter (APCWU) contained a provision, which read: "The regular working days in a week shall be five (5) days on any day from Monday to Sunday, as may be scheduled by the COMPANY, upon seven (7) days prior notice unless any of this day is declared a special holiday."
In accordance with the above-quoted provision of the CBA, the employees' work week was reduced to five days or a total of 250 days a year. ICTSI, however, continued using the pre-CBA 304-day divisor in computing the wages of the employees.
In November 1990, the Regional Tripartite Wage and Productivity Board (RTWPB) in NCR decreed a P17.00 daily wage increase for all workers and employees receiving P125.00 per day or lower. The then president of APCWU, together with some union members, thus requested the ICTSI's HR Department/Personnel Manager to compute the actual monthly increase in the employees' wages by multiplying the mandated increase by 365 days and dividing the product by 12 months.
Heeding the proposal and following the implementation of the new wage order, ICTSI stopped using 304 days as divisor and started using 365 days in determining the daily wage of its employees and other consequential compensation, even if the employees' work week consisted of only five days as agreed upon in the CBA.
In early 1997, ICTSI went on a retrenchment program and laid off its on-call employees. This prompted the APCWU-ICTSI to file a notice of strike which included as cause of action not only the retrenchment of the employees but also ICTSI's use of 365 days as divisor in the computation of wages. The dispute respecting the retrenchment was resolved by a compromise settlement. However, the dispute respecting the computation of wages was referred to the LA.
On February 26, 1997, APCWU, on behalf of its members and other employees similarly situated, filed with the LA a complaint against ICTSI. But the LA dismissed the complaint due to APCWU's failure to file its position paper.
The dismissal of the complaint prompted herein petitioners (Acedera, et al.), all of whom were ICTSI employees and APCWU officers/members, to file a motion to revive the case, which was granted. Subsequently, Acedera, et al. filed a Complaint-in-Intervention with Motion to Intervene before the LA.
LA ruling: (a) Correct divisor should be 250 days; (b) Acedera, et al.'s motion to intervene was denied because herein petitioners were already well represented by APCWU.
NLRC ruling: (a) LA ruling on divisor reversed; correct divisor should still be 365 days; (b) affirmed the denial of Acedera, et al.'s Motion to Intervene.
CA ruling: (a) NLRC ruling on divisor affirmed; (b) Acedera, et al.'s appeal re: Motion to Intervene denied because: (1) Acedera, et al. were already well represented by their employees union, APCWU; (2) only Acedera signed the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping; and (3) Acedera, et al. have not presented any meritorious argument that would justify the reversal of the Decision of the NLRC.
Hence, the instant petition.
RULING:
Petition denied.
Whether Acedera, et al. can intervene in the case against ICTSI even though the former were already represented by their union, APCWU. – NO.
The reason why Acedera, et al. wanted to intervene was because they were afraid that APCWU would not prosecute the case diligently on account of the latter's alleged "sweetheart" relationship with ICTSI.
Pursuant to Rule 19 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Acedera, et al. stressed that they have complied with the requisites for intervention because (1) they were the ones who stand to gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of any judgment that may be rendered in this case, (2) no undue delay or prejudice would result from their intervention since their Complaint-in-Intervention with Motion for Intervention was filed while the LA was still hearing the case and before any decision thereon was rendered, and (3) it was not possible for them to file a separate case as they would be guilty of forum shopping because the only forum available for them was the LA.
But according to the Court, Acedera, et al.'s petition must necessarily be denied on account of their failure to prove APCWU's alleged "sweetheart" relationship with ICTSI, as well as their failure to consider the rule on representation.
Section 3 of the ROC: "Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the real party in interest. A representative may be a trustee of an express trust, a guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party authorized by law or these Rules."
A labor union is one such party authorized to represent its members under Article 242(a) of the Labor Code, which provides that a union may act as the representative of its members for the purpose of collective bargaining. This authority includes the power to represent its members for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the CBA. That APCWU acted in a representative capacity for and in behalf of its Union members and other employees similarly situated, the title of the case filed by it at the LA so expressly states.
For a member of a class to be permitted to intervene in a representative action, fraud or collusion or lack of good faith on the part of the representative must be proven. It must be based on facts borne on record; mere assertions do not suffice.
In the present case, there was neither fraud nor collusion. The dismissal of the case before the LA, the NLRC, and the CA did not by itself show the existence of fraud or collusion or a lack of good faith on the part of APCWU. Acedera, et al. also failed to substantiate their allegations.
