Title
Supreme Court
Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company vs. Lepanto Local Staff Union
Case
G.R. No. 161713
Decision Date
Aug 20, 2008
Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company disputed night shift differential and longevity pay under its 4th CBA with Lepanto Local Staff Union. Courts ruled in favor of LLSU, affirming CBA terms and LCMC's past practices.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 180740)

Facts of the Case

Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company and Lepanto Local Staff Union, representing the staff employees of the mining company, entered into their fourth Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) on November 28, 1998. This agreement included provisions for night shift differential pay and longevity pay. On April 23, 2000, the Union filed a complaint alleging the company’s failure to pay the agreed benefits. Both parties failed to amicably settle the dispute and sought resolution from Voluntary Arbitrator Norma B. Advincula.

Ruling of the Voluntary Arbitrator

The Voluntary Arbitrator ruled in favor of the Union, mandating Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company to pay the claimed longevity pay and night shift differential. The Arbitrator clarified that the longevity pay of P30.00 per month should be effective from July 1, 1998, and rejected the company’s argument that the payment should start only on July 1, 1999. Regarding the night shift differential, the Arbitrator confirmed that surface workers after 3:00 p.m. were entitled to an additional pay rate, while also stating that the time used for calculating overtime would not include the night differential.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Upon review, the Court of Appeals upheld the Arbitrator's ruling, affirming that the CBA's provisions were unambiguous. The court noted that the petitioner had complied with the CBA by paying the night shift differential to affected employees and rejected the company’s claim that this was due to an error. The court stated that the continuous payment, even after the Arbitrator's decision, indicated the intent to provide the night differential benefits.

Legal Analysis of the Issue

The Supreme Court assessed whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Arbitrator's interpretation regarding entitlement to night shift differential pay. The Court emphasized that the terms of a collective bargaining agreement serve as the law between the parties. Clear language in the CBA indicated entitlement to night shift differential for employees working beyond normal hours. The Court upheld the interpretations of the A

...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.