Title
Supreme Court
Acedera vs. International Container Terminal Services
Case
G.R. No. 146073
Decision Date
Jan 13, 2003
Employees challenged ICTSI's wage computation using a 365-day divisor, despite requesting it earlier. Courts ruled in favor of ICTSI, citing estoppel, CBA ambiguity, and procedural non-compliance.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 146073)

Relevant Contracts and Agreements

The first CBA was entered into on September 28, 1990, and was effective until September 28, 1995. It was subsequently renewed with a second CBA that took effect on September 29, 1995. Both CBAs stipulated that employees would work five days a week but did not specify how wages should be computed, leading to disputes over the divisor used for salary calculations.

Wage Computation Dispute

Initially, ICTSI calculated employee wages using a divisor of 304 days per year. However, following a wage increase from the Regional Tripartite Wage and Productivity Board (RTWPB), ICTSI switched to using a 365-day divisor for wage determination, even though the employees’ actual work week was reduced to 250 days as per the CBA.

Retrenchment and Strike Action

In early 1997, ICTSI implemented a retrenchment program affecting its on-call employees. The APCWU filed a notice of strike which included complaints regarding both the retrenchment and the divisor issue for wage computation. While the retrenchment issue was later resolved through a compromise, the wage issue continued to the Labor Arbiter.

Complaint and Motion for Intervention

The APCWU, representing its members, filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter on February 26, 1997. However, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint due to APCWU's failure to submit a position paper. After a motion to revive the case was granted, petitioners-appellants sought to intervene, arguing their interests were at stake, particularly if the union failed to prosecute the case diligently.

Labor Arbiter’s Decision

The Labor Arbiter ruled that the correct divisor for wage calculations was 250 days, directing ICTSI to pay the salary differentials to the employees. However, the Labor Arbiter denied the petitioners-appellants’ motion to intervene, citing adequate representation by APCWU.

Appeals and Certifications

The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision regarding the wage computation but upheld the denial of the petitioners-appellants’ intervention. Unsatisfied, both APCWU and the petitioners filed petitions for certiorari to the Court of Appeals. The Appeals Court dismissed APCWU’s petition due to procedural deficiencies and also dismissed the petitioners-appellants’ petition because they were adequately represented by APCWU.

Legal Grounds for Denial of Intervention

In assessing the petitioners-appellants' right to intervene based on Rule 19 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court noted that the union, under Arti

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.