G.R. No. 146073 ; January 13, 2003
JERRY E. ACEDERA, ANTONIO PARILLA, AND OTHERS LISTED IN ANNEX “A,” petitioners-appellants, vs. INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES, INC. (ICTSI), NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and HON. COURT OF APPEALS, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioners-appellants are employees of International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI) and are officers/members of the Associated Port Checkers & Workers Union-ICTSI Local Chapter (APCWU-ICTSI). When ICTSI started operations in 1988, it computed employee wages using a 304-day divisor. On September 28, 1990, ICTSI entered into a five-year Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with APCWU, renewed for another five years in 1995. Article IX, Section 1 of both CBAs stipulated a regular work week of five days. Consequently, the actual work days per year were reduced to 250, but ICTSI continued using the 304-day divisor. Following a November 10, 1990 wage order from the Regional Tripartite Wage and Productivity Board (RTWPB), the APCWU president and some members requested ICTSI to compute the wage increase using a 365-day divisor. ICTSI complied and thereafter used 365 days as the divisor for computing daily wages and other compensation, despite the five-day work week. In early 1997, ICTSI implemented a retrenchment program, prompting APCWU-ICTSI to file a notice of strike, which included the issue of the 365-day divisor. The retrenchment dispute was settled, but the wage computation issue was referred to the Labor Arbiter. On February 26, 1997, APCWU filed a complaint against ICTSI, which was initially dismissed for failure to file a position paper but was later revived. On December 8, 1997, petitioners-appellants filed a Complaint-in-Intervention with Motion to Intervene with the Labor Arbiter, justifying their intervention to ensure diligent prosecution of the case. The Labor Arbiter ruled that the correct divisor was 250 days and ordered ICTSI to pay salary differentials but denied the petitioners-appellants’ intervention, finding they were already represented by APCWU. The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision on the merits, dismissing APCWU’s complaint and affirming the denial of intervention. APCWU and petitioners-appellants separately filed petitions for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed APCWU’s petition on procedural grounds and dismissed the petitioners-appellants’ petition, ruling it was superfluous as they were already represented by APCWU, and that only one petitioner signed the certificate of non-forum shopping. The appellate court also found no merit in the substantive claim, noting the CBA did not specify a divisor and that the employees were estopped from complaining after having requested the 365-day divisor and not objecting during CBA negotiations.

ISSUE

The primary issue determined by the Supreme Court was whether the petitioners-appellants had a legal right to intervene in the case filed by their labor union, APCWU, against their employer, ICTSI.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition. It held that the petitioners-appellants had no legal right to intervene. The Court ruled that a labor union, like APCWU, is authorized under Article 242(a) of the Labor Code to act as the representative of its members for collective bargaining and for enforcing the CBA. Since APCWU filed the case “for and in behalf of its Union members and other employees similarly situated,” it was acting in a representative capacity. The Court emphasized that a person whose interests are already represented by a party, such as a union, is ordinarily not permitted to intervene, except upon a clear showing of fraud, collusion, or that the representative will not act in good faith. The petitioners-appellants failed to present clear and convincing evidence of such fraud, collusion, or lack of good faith. Their allegations of a “sweetheart relationship” between APCWU and ICTSI were raised only as an afterthought in their last pleading to the Supreme Court and were not supported by the record. The mere dismissal of APCWU’s complaint by the Labor Arbiter and the Court of Appeals did not, by itself, prove bad faith. Consequently, the petitioners-appellants’ intervention was improper. Given this disposition, the Supreme Court found it unnecessary to discuss the other assigned errors regarding the correct divisor and the application of estoppel.