G.R. No. 161713 - Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company vs. Lepanto Local Staff Union

Petitioner: Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company, a domestic mining corporation.
Respondent: Lepanto Local Staff Union, the duly certified bargaining agent representing the staff employees of the petitioner.
The dispute centers on benefits and wage issues arising under the parties’ Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs).

Entered into on 28 November 1998, covering the period from 1 July 1998 to 30 June 2000.
Contains specific provisions regarding night shift differential and longevity pay:

Night shift differential for the First Shift (11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) is 20% of the basic rate.
For the Third Shift (3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.), the differential is 15% of the basic rate.
For overtime work extending beyond the regular day shift (7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.), no night differential is added before computing overtime pay.

Longevity pay of P30.00 per month, effective from 1 July 1998 and each successive year thereafter.

On 23 April 2000, the respondent filed a complaint with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board – Cordillera Administrative Region (NCMB-CAR).
The complaint alleged the petitioner’s failure to pay:

Due to the inability of the parties to settle the dispute amicably, they agreed to submit the issues to Voluntary Arbitrator Norma B. Advincula.
The Voluntary Arbitrator rendered a Decision on 26 May 2000:

Ruling in favor of the respondent, awarding longevity pay (P30.00 per month from 1 July 1998) and granting additional night shift differential benefits.
Specified that surface workers on the second shift who worked after 3:00 p.m. should receive an additional night shift differential of 15% of their basic rate.
Interpreted paragraph 3, Section 3 of Article VIII as excluding the night shift differential from the computation of overtime pay, but not denying the differential itself for work rendered beyond the regular day shift.
Ruled that claims for night shift differential under previous CBAs (1st, 2nd, and 3rd) had prescribed.

The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration before the Voluntary Arbitrator, which was denied on 5 August 2000 for lack of merit.
Thereafter, the petitioner sought review before the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals issued a Decision on 22 July 2003 affirming the Voluntary Arbitrator’s ruling.
The CA found that records showed the petitioner had voluntarily complied by paying the night shift differential as stipulated, thereby evidencing the parties’ intent.
A subsequent motion for reconsideration by the petitioner was denied by the CA on 20 January 2004.

The present petition for review now stands before the Supreme Court on the issue raised.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Voluntary Arbitrator’s interpretation of the 4th CBA regarding night shift differential pay.

Specifically, the issue is whether workers on the second shift are entitled to receive night shift differential for work rendered beyond the regular day shift (7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.).
The debate centers on the interpretation of paragraph 3, Section 3 of Article VIII of the 4th CBA – whether its wording excludes night shift differential altogether for work done after 3:00 p.m. or merely excludes its inclusion in the computation of overtime pay.