Food Terminal Inc. v. NLRC (April 27, 2001)

FACTS: Petitioner is GOCG and respondents are its’ rank-and-file employees seeking their salary differential, traveling allowance differentials, 13th month pay, 14th month pay and other incremental increases as a result of an increase in their gross pay, plus interest, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and costs of the litigation. The facts show that Special Orders upgrading their positions and correspondingly adjusting their salaries were issued but despite several representations from respondents, petition’s new board refused to implement the Special Orders which the LA granted. The NLRC and the CA both uphold the decision. Petitioner claims that the officer who issued the orders was not authorized by the Board to issue the subject Special Orders, so the Special Orders had no binding force and effect. It also claims that only 21 out of the 65 complainants signed the verification attached to the complaint filed with the LA, hence, only they have legal personality to prosecute the case and as for the rest, the complaint was dismissible as to them for lack of legal personality.


ISSUE: Whether or not the special orders were valid and could be implemented and whether or not the rest of the complainants have legal personality in the suit.


HELD: The SC upheld all the decisions. On the first ground, petitioner failed to show evidence that the order were issued without authority. All their statements were self-serving therefore not given much weight. On the second ground the complaint shows that complainants therein were being represented by their counsel of choice and in the verification attached to the compliant, it is manifested that the 21 signatories were not signing in their own behalf but also in behalf of the other. And in the NLRC rules of procedure, sec 7 provides that attorneys and other representatives of parties shall have authority to bind their clients in all matters of procedures. But they cannot, without a special power of attorney or express consent, enter into a compromise agreement with the opposing party in full of partial discharge of a client’s claim. In this case no special power of attorney was needed because no compromise agreement was being entered into.