Download Labor Relation Digest Case Allan Velasco Group 3 PDF

TitleLabor Relation Digest Case Allan Velasco Group 3
TagsArbitration Unfair Labor Practice Strike Action Employment Collective Bargaining
File Size181.5 KB
Total Pages30
Table of Contents
Document Text Contents
Page 1

395 SCRA 103 (2003)


1. Ordinarily, a person whose interests are already represented will not be permitted to
do the same except when there is a suggestionof fraud or collusion or that the
representative will not act in good faith.

2. Jerry Acedera, et al. are employees of International Container Terminal Services, Inc.
(ICTSI) and aremembers of Associated Port Checkers & Workers Union-International
Container Terminal Services, Inc.(APCWU-ICTSI), a duly registered labor organization.
ICTSI entered into a five-year Collective BargainingAgreement (CBA) with APCWU
which reduced the employees· work days from 304 to 250 days a year.

3. The Wage Board decreed wage increases in NCR which affected ICTSI. Upon the
request of APCWU tocompute the actual monthly increase in the employee·s salary
by multiplying the mandated increase by 365days and dividing by12 months, ICTSI
stopped using 304 days as divisor and started using 365 days to determine the daily

4. Later on, ICTSI entered into a retrenchment program which prompted APCWU to file a
complaint beforethe Labor Arbiter (LA) for ICTSI·s use of 365 days, instead of 250
days, as divisor in the computation ofwages. Acedera et al. filed a Motion to
Intervene which was denied by the LA. On appeal, National LaborRelations
Commission (NLRC) affirmed LA·s decision. Acedera et al. filed a petition forcerti
orari to the Courtof Appeals (CA) which was dismissed.


Whether or not Acedera et al. have no legal right to intervene in the case as their
intervention was a


Acedera et al. stress that they have complied with the requisites for intervention
because (1) they are 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 Labor Arbiter 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 Labor Arbiter.

Page 2

Acedera et al., however, failed to consider, in addition to the rule on intervention, the
rule on representation. 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 CBA. 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 Labor
Arbiters Office so expressly states.
While a party acting in a representative capacity, such as a union, may be permitted to
intervene in a case, ordinarily, a person whose interests are already represented will not be
permitted to do the same except when there is a suggestion of fraud or collusion or that the
representative will not act in good faith for the protection of all interests represented by

Acedera et al. cite the dismissal of the case filed by ICTSI, first by the Labor Arbiter,
and later by the Court of Appeals. The dismissal of the case does not, however, by itself
show the existence of fraud or collusion or a lack of good faith on the part of APCWU. There
must be clear and convincing evidence of fraud or collusion or lack of good faith
independently of the dismissal. This, Acedera et al. failed to proffer.

Acedera et al. likewise express their fear that APCWU would not prosecute the case
diligently because of its “sweetheart relationship" with ICTSI. There is nothing on record,
however, to support this alleged relationship which allegation surfaces as a mere
afterthought because it was never raised early on. It was raised only in petitioners-
appellants· reply to ICTSI·s comment in the petition at bar, the last pleading submitted to
this Court, which was filed on June 20, 2001 or more than 42 months after petitioners-

Appellants filed their Complaint-in-Intervention with Motion to Intervene with the

Labor Arbiter. To reiterate, 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,

as what petitioners-appellants proffer, do not suffice.

Petition is denied.

Page 16


Grievance Machinery and Voluntary Arbitration

[G.R. No. 142244. November 18, 2002] ATLAS FARMS, INC., petitioner, vs.
ABION, respondents.


5. Jaime O. dela Peña was employed as a veterinary aide by petitioner in December
1975. He was among several employees terminated in July 1989. On July 8, 1989,
he was re-hired by petitioner and given the additional job of feedmill operator. He
was instructed to train selected workers to operate the feedmill.

6. Peña was allegedly caught urinating and defecating on company premises not
intended for the purpose.

7. From the start of his employment on July 8, 1989, until his termination on March 20,
1993, Peña had worked for seven days a week, including holidays, without overtime,
holiday, rest day pay and service incentive leave.

8. At the time of his dismissal from employment, he was receiving P180 pesos daily
wage, or an average monthly salary of P5,402.

9. Co-respondent Marcial I. Abion1 was a carpenter/mason and a maintenance man
whose employment by petitioner commenced on October 8, 1990.

10.Like Peña, Abion worked seven days a week, including holidays, without holiday pay,
rest day pay, service incentive leave pay and night shift differential pay. When
terminated on October 27, 1992, Abion was receiving a monthly salary of P4,500.

11. Peña and Abion filed separate complaints for illegal dismissal that were later

12. The labor arbiter dismissed their complaints on the ground that the grievance
machinery in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) had not yet been

13. Their cases were consolidated in the NLRC. At the initial mandatory conference,
petitioner filed a motion to dismiss, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, alleging
private respondents themselves admitted that they were members of the
employees’ union with which petitioner had an existing CBA.

14. The labor arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, finding that the case
was one of illegal dismissal and did not involve the interpretation or implementation
of any CBA provision. He stated that Article 217 (c) of the Labor Code2 was




Similer Documents