Acedera vs.

ICSTI
Jerry Acedera and other petitioners are employees ICTSI. They are also officers/members
of APCWU-ICTSI, a labor organization duly registered as a local affiliate of APCWU.
Initially on 1988, ICTSI, it set the salary rate by using 304 working days a year. On 1990,
ICSTI and APCWU entered into CBA which is effective until 1995. Upon its expiration,
they entered into another CBA. Both of the CBA determined the number of working
days. The employees work week was reduced to five days or a total of 250 days a year.
ICTSI, however, continued using the 304-day divisor in computing the wages of the
employees. Later, the RTWPB ordered a P17.00 daily wage increase for all workers. The
then president of APCWU, together with some union members, requested the ICTSI to
compute the actual monthly increase in the employees wages by multiplying the RTWPB
mandated increase by 365 days and dividing the product by 12 months. ICSTI followed
such computation. On 1997, ICSTI went on a retrenchment program and laid off its oncall employees. Hence, APCWU-ICTSI filed a notice of strike.
APCWU, filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint against ICTSI. This was dismissed due
to APCWUs failure to file position paper. However, upon its motion, the case was
revived.
Petitioners-appellants, including Acedera filed with the Labor Arbiter a Complaint-inIntervention with Motion to Intervene. They claim that should the union succeed in
prosecuting the case and in getting a favorable reward it is actually they that would
benefit from the decision. On the other hand, should the union fail to prove its case, or to
prosecute the case diligently, the individual workers or members of the union would
suffer great and immeasurable loss.
LA :denied the motion to intervene upon a finding that they are already well represented
by APCWU.
NLRC: affirmed the denial of motion to intervene
CA: denial of motion to intervene is proper
ISSUE: Should the motion for intervention be granted? NO.
RULING:
Petitioners-appellants, failed to consider, in addition to the rule on intervention, the rule
on representation, thusly:
Sec. 3. Representatives as parties.- Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted or
defended by a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary
shall be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the real party in
interest. A representative may be a trustee of an express trust, a guardian, an executor or
administrator, or a party authorized by law or these Rules.

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 collective bargaining. 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 him.
Petitioners-appellants 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, petitioners-appellants failed to proffer.
Tropical Hut Union vs. Tropical Hut
Facts: The rank and file workers of the Tropical Hut Food organized a local union named
Tropical Hut Employees Union, (THEU). They elected their officers, adopted their
constitution and by-laws and immediately sought affiliation with the National Association
of Trade Unions (NATU). NATU accepted the THEU application for affiliation. The
Department of Labor issued a registration certificate in the name of the THEU-NATU. It
appears, however, that NATU itself as a labor federation, was not registered with the
Department of Labor.
After several negotiations were conducted between THEU-NATU, represented by its
local president and the national officers of the NATU, a Collective Bargaining Agreement
was concluded between the parties which expired on March 31, 1971.
On May 21, 1971, Tropical Hut and THEU-NATU entered into a new CBA which ended
on March 31, 1974. This new CBA incorporated the previous union-shop security clause
and the attached check-off authorization form.
Subsequently, NATU received a letter stating that THEU was disaffiliating from it. The
letter was passed around among the members of the THEU-NATU, signatures appeared
as having given their consent to and acknowledgment of the decision to disaffiliate the
THEU from the NATU.
ISSUES: Whether or not the disaffiliation of the local union from the national federation
was valid?

RULING: YES. The right of a local union to disaffiliate from its mother federation is
well-settled. A local union, being a separate and voluntary association, is free to serve the
interest of all its members including the freedom to disaffiliate when circumstances
warrant.
The locals are separate and distinct units primarily designed to secure and maintain an
equality of bargaining power between the employer and their employee-members in the
economic struggle for the fruits of the joint productive effort of labor and capital; and the
association of the locals into the national union was in furtherance of the same end. These
associations are consensual entities capable of entering into such legal relations with their
member. The essential purpose was the affiliation of the local unions into a common
enterprise to increase by collective action the common bargaining power in respect of the
terms and conditions of labor. Yet the locals remained the basic units of association, free
to serve their own and the common interest of all, subject to the restraints imposed by the
Constitution and By-Laws of the Association, and free also to renounce the affiliation for
mutual welfare upon the terms laid down in the agreement which brought it into
existence.
The inclusion of the word NATU after the name of the local union THEU in the
registration with the Department of Labor is merely to stress that the THEU is NATU's
affiliate at the time of the registration. It does not mean that the said local union cannot
stand on its own. When the local union withdrew from the old federation to join a new
federation, it was merely exercising its primary right to labor organization for the
effective enhancement and protection of common interests. In the absence of enforceable
provisions in the federation's constitution preventing disaffiliation of a local union a local
may sever its relationship with its parent
There is nothing in the constitution of the NATU or in the constitution of the THEUNATU that the THEU was expressly forbidden to disaffiliate from the federation.
The collective bargaining agreements show that the THEU-NATU, and not the NATU
federation, was recognized as the sole and exclusive collective bargaining agent for all its
workers and employees in all matters concerning wages, hours of work and other terms
and conditions of employment. Although NATU was designated as the sole bargaining
agent in the check-off authorization form attached to the CBA, this simply means it was
acting only for and in behalf of its affiliate. The NATU possessed the status of an agent
while the local union remained the basic principal union which entered into contract with
the respondent company. When the THEU disaffiliated from its mother federation, the
former did not lose its legal personality as the bargaining union under the CBA.