Nasipit Integrated Arrastre and Stevedoring Services, Inc. vs. Nasipit Employees Labor Union

A wage order that expressly covers "minimum wage earners" does not extend to employees already receiving wages above the prescribed minimum, pursuant to the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius; the only exception is where employees above the minimum may receive wage increases through the correction of wage distortions as provided in the implementing rules.

NIASSI is a domestic corporation with offices at Talisay, Nasipit, Agusan del Norte, engaged in arrastre and stevedoring services. Respondent Nasipit Employees Labor Union (NELU)-ALU-TUCP is the collective bargaining agent of NIASSI's rank-and-file employees and is a local chapter of the Associated Labor Union. The parties are bound by a Collective Bargaining Agreement containing provisions on wage increases and their creditability to future legally mandated wage increases. The Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board of Caraga Region issued Wage Order No. RXIII-02, granting a ₱12 per day cost of living allowance to minimum wage earners in the region, the implementation of which became the subject of the dispute.

In October 1999, the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board of Caraga Region issued Wage Order No. RXIII-02, granting an additional ₱12 per day cost of living allowance to minimum wage earners in the region. NIASSI did not implement the wage order, prompting the Union to file a complaint before the Department of Labor and Employment Caraga Regional Office seeking inspection of NIASSI's records and enforcement of the wage order. A DOLE inspection team was dispatched and, in its reports dated May 30, 2000 and November 28, 2000, stated that WO RXIII-02 was not applicable to NIASSI's employees because they were already receiving a wage rate higher than the prescribed minimum wage.

Upon the Union's motion, the DOLE Regional Director endorsed the case to the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch. On May 18, 2001, Executive Labor Arbiter Rogelio P. Legaspi referred the case to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board for voluntary arbitration, where it was docketed as VA Case No. 0925-XIII-08-003-01A.

On February 22, 2002, Voluntary Arbitrator Jesus G. Chavez rendered a decision granting the Union's prayer for implementation of WO RXIII-02. Chavez reasoned that the wage order did not specifically prohibit the grant of wage increases to employees earning above the minimum wage, noting that the order enumerated those outside its coverage—household or domestic helpers and persons in personal service—without including employees earning above the minimum. He further held that the CBA between NIASSI and the Union provided that wage increases granted by the company within one year from CBA signing shall not be creditable to future legally mandated wage increases, and found no evidence that the employees' overage resulted from wage increases granted within one year of the CBA's execution. Applying the adage that doubt is resolved in favor of labor, Chavez concluded the overage could not be credited against the ₱12 COLA. He also noted that NIASSI would suffer no damage because its petition to increase tariff rates—filed to counter the financial burden of implementing the wage order—had been granted and had been in effect since February 16, 2000.

After the denial of its motion for reconsideration, NIASSI filed a petition for review under Rule 43 with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 70435. The CA, by its decision dated September 30, 2003, found the voluntary arbitrator's decision in order and dismissed the petition. NIASSI's motion for reconsideration was denied by resolution dated January 9, 2004. NIASSI then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.

• Coverage of Wage Order: Petitioner argued that its employees enjoy a daily wage level higher than the minimum wage mandated by WO RXIII-02; thus, the wage order is not applicable to them.
• No Across-the-Board Effect: Petitioner contended that the Wage Board did not envision a wage order with an "across-the-board" wage increase effect, and that the order could be made to apply only to minimum wage earners.
• CBA Inapplicability: Petitioner maintained that, since WO RXIII-02 is not applicable to its employees, the issue respecting the interpretation of the CBA provision on wage crediting finds no application.

• CBA Mandate: Respondent maintained that Section 2, Article XIX of the CBA clearly mandates the implementation of WO RXIII-02 to cover all of NIASSI's employees.
• No Express Prohibition: While admitting that the new wage rates specifically apply only to minimum wage earners, respondent argued that WO RXIII-02, as couched, does not specifically prohibit the grant of wage increase to employees already receiving wages over the prescribed minimum wage.

• Coverage of Wage Order: Whether WO RXIII-02 may be made to apply and cover NIASSI's employees who, at the time of the issuance and effectivity of the wage order, were already receiving a wage rate higher than the prevailing minimum wage.
• CBA Interpretation: Whether the CBA provision on non-creditability of wage increases applies to the present dispute.

• Coverage of Wage Order: No. WO RXIII-02 applies only to minimum wage earners, as expressly stated in Section 1 of the wage order and its implementing rules. Employees receiving wages above the prescribed minimum are excluded pursuant to the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, except for the correction of wage distortions.
• CBA Interpretation: No. The CBA provision on non-creditability finds no application because the real issue is the coverage and application of WO RXIII-02, not the creditability of prior wage increases. The voluntary arbitrator erred in utilizing the adage "doubt is resolved in labor" to extend the wage order's coverage beyond its terms.

• Coverage of Wage Order: Section 1 of WO RXIII-02 expressly provides that the rates prescribed shall apply to "minimum wage earners" in the private sector. The IRR similarly limits coverage to minimum wage earners, with Section 1(c) of Rule II providing the sole exception: workers receiving more than the prescribed rates may receive wage increases only "through the correction of wage distortions." Applying the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the express mention of minimum wage earners as beneficiaries necessarily excludes those receiving rates above the prescribed minimum. The Court further noted that it would be highly irregular for the Wage Board to issue an across-the-board wage increase, as its mandate under R.A. No. 6727 is limited to determining and fixing minimum wage rates. Citing Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, Inc. vs. National Wages and Productivity Commission, the Court reiterated that a Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board commits an ultra vires and unreasonable act when, instead of setting a minimum wage rate, it prescribes a wage increase cutting across all levels of employment and wage brackets. Since NIASSI's employees are undisputedly already receiving a wage rate higher than that prescribed by the wage order, NIASSI is not legally obliged to grant them the wage increase.

• CBA Interpretation: The voluntary arbitrator, after admitting that NIASSI's employees were receiving above the prescribed minimum wage, faulted NIASSI for not presenting evidence that the overage resulted from general wage increases granted within one year of the CBA's effectivity. By simplistically applying "doubt is resolved in labor" rather than examining the records and evidence, the arbitrator improperly extended the coverage of WO RXIII-02 to include persons not intended to receive the benefit. The CBA provision on non-creditability is inapplicable because creditability is not the real issue—the real issue is whether the wage order covers NIASSI's employees at all. The Court emphasized that while it accords protection to the working class, justice must be dispensed in light of established facts and applicable law and doctrine, and not every dispute can be resolved to further the cause of labor.

• Expressio unius est exclusio alterius — The express mention of one person, thing, act, or consequence excludes all others. Applied in this case to hold that the express designation of "minimum wage earners" as beneficiaries of WO RXIII-02 necessarily excluded employees receiving wages above the prescribed minimum.

• Ultra vires acts of the RTWPB — A Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board commits an ultra vires and unreasonable act when, instead of setting a minimum wage rate, it prescribes a wage increase cutting across all levels of employment and wage brackets without a denominated salary ceiling. The RTWPB's mandate under R.A. No. 6727 is limited to determining and fixing minimum wage rates within its region, not granting across-the-board increases.

• Limits of labor protection — While the Court accords protection to the working class and tilts the balance of justice in labor's favor whenever appropriate, it is not possible to resolve every dispute to further the cause of labor. Justice must be granted to the deserving and dispensed in light of established facts and applicable law and doctrine.

• "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The express mention of one person, thing, act, or consequence excludes all others." — This passage articulates the controlling statutory construction principle applied to determine that the wage order's express coverage of "minimum wage earners" excluded employees already earning above the minimum.

• "While it behooves the Court to accord protection to the working class, tilting the balance of justice in its favor whenever appropriate, it is not possible to resolve every dispute to further the cause of labor. In every case, justice is to be granted to the deserving and dispensed in the light of established facts and the applicable law and doctrine, as here." — This passage defines the limits of the labor protection principle, frequently cited to counter the reflexive application of pro-labor presumptions where the law and facts do not support the claim.

• "If only the voluntary arbitrator was circumspect enough to consider the facts on hand, he would have seen that the CBA provision on non-creditability finds no application in the present case, because creditability is not the real issue in this case." — This passage clarifies that the dispositive issue was the coverage of the wage order, not the interpretation of the CBA's non-creditability clause, and criticizes the arbitrator's misidentification of the controlling question.

• Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, Inc. vs. National Wages and Productivity Commission, G.R. No. 144322, Feb. 6, 2007 — Controlling precedent on the authority of the RTWPB. The Court relied on this case to establish that the RTWPB's mandate is limited to fixing minimum wage rates and that prescribing across-the-board wage increases exceeding that mandate constitutes an ultra vires act.

• Commissioner of Customs vs. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. 48886-88, July 21, 1993 — Cited as authority for the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, applied to construe the coverage of the wage order.

• Pag-Asa Steel Works, Inc., G.R. No. 166647, March 31, 2006 — Cited in support of the proposition that only employees receiving salaries below the prescribed minimum wage are entitled to the wage increase set forth under a wage order.

• Norkis Free and Independent Workers Union vs. Norkis Trading Company, Inc., G.R. No. 157098, June 30, 2005 — Cited in support of the principle that justice must be granted to the deserving and dispensed in light of established facts and applicable law, not reflexively in favor of labor.

• Section 1, Wage Order No. RXIII-02 — Provides that the rates prescribed shall apply to "minimum wage earners" in the private sector, and excludes household or domestic helpers and persons employed in the personal service of another. Applied to determine that NIASSI's employees, already receiving above the minimum wage, were not covered.

• Section 1, Rule II, IRR of WO RXIII-02 — Mirrors the coverage provision of the wage order and adds in Section 1(c) that workers receiving more than the prescribed rates may receive wage increases only "through the correction of wage distortions" in accordance with Section 1, Rule IV. Applied to confirm the sole exception to the exclusion of above-minimum wage earners.

• Article XIX, Section 2, CBA between NIASSI and the Union — Provides that all general wage increases granted by the company after one year from the signing of the CBA shall not be creditable to any future wage increases mandated by wage legislation or issuance of the Regional Wage Board. Held inapplicable because the real issue was coverage of the wage order, not creditability of prior increases.

• R.A. No. 6727 — Declared the State's policy to rationalize the fixing of minimum wages, created the NWPC, and authorized the RTWPB to determine and fix minimum wage rates and issue corresponding wage orders. Applied to define the scope of the RTWPB's wage-fixing authority.

• Article 124, Labor Code — Sets the standards or criteria for the RTWPB's wage-fixing authority. Cited as the basis pursuant to which the RTWPB may issue wage orders setting daily minimum wage rates.

Conchita Carpio Morales (Acting Chairperson), Dante O. Tinga, Minita V. Chico-Nazario, and Arturo D. Brion concurred. No separate concurring opinions were written.