Arbiter keeps labor ruling un-enforced

If the Bangko Sentral won’t do it, then Congress might  shield consumers from abusive credit card companies.

Rep. Arthur Yap (3rd district, Bohol) is proposing to criminalize the exaction of excessive charges. A card provider who overcharges shall be imprisoned for six years and fined P500,000, with business license revoked. The bill would limit interest and penalty to 1 percent a month, or 12 percent per year, each, the ceiling prescribed in several Supreme Court rulings. The latest such decision was last year (see http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/175490.htm).

Yap is the second congressman to move for cardholders’ protection against what the SC calls “exorbitant, iniquitous, excessive” impositions. The other week Rep. Winston Castelo (2nd district, Quezon City) filed a bill also for only 1 percent monthly interest, plus 1 percent penalty for delinquency. Senators Francis Escudero, Ramon Revilla Jr. and Manuel Villar have filed similar caps in light of mounting consumer complaints. Legislators are set to take up the bills after approving the 2011 national budget.

Most card companies impose 3 percent interest a month, and 3 percent penalty. Others tack on 3.5 to 5 percent a month for each, plus finance charges. The Anti-Usury Law was suspended in the 1980s, when credit rates were only around 0.5 percent a month.

The Bangko Sentral is accused of ignoring the complaints and siding with card providers. It tells consumers that the many SC rulings pertain only to the specific litigants, so those who want relief must also file court cases and pray that these reach the SC.

Yap notes that four million Filipinos hold around 6.5 million credit cards. “Expect this number to rise as consumers are constantly wooed by marketing gimmicks to avail and use credit cards for everyday purchases,” Yap says. With a huge segment of cardholders undisciplined with the use of credit, they fall into the debt trap. Even good payers are penalized as card companies, by their own admission, increase charges to make up for uncollected bills.

*    *    *

This is a legal quiz for lawyers and laymen alike.

As far back as January 2005 Adela Velasco and eight co-employees won reinstatement with back wages at a manufactory. The company had the case re-raffled to another arbiter, RJ, at the National Labor Relations Commission. With the employees’ lawyer, Atty. DA, RJ laid down the kalakaran (arrangement). Instead of immediately enforcing a return to work, Arbiter RJ deposited the back wages in the bank account of one of the employees, RT. From there Atty. DA supposedly would draw legal fees and litigation expenses. Computations were made. Barely 40 percent of the back wages would be left after deducting Atty. DA’s needs to fight the company’s appeals to higher courts. And the employees were not to touch the deposit till the fight was over.

The case did land in the Court of Appeals; the employees won as their complaint of illegal dismissal was upheld. The case rose to the Supreme Court; in April 2010 again the employees won reinstatement with back wages. The SC made an Entry of Judgment in September 2010.

Question No. 1 from Adela: does that not mean final and executory ruling?

Based on processes, it is the NLRC that will enforce the decision. So back to Arbiter RJ the papers went. He could not release the full back wages to the employees because Atty. DA already had withdrawn the 60 percent. And instead of obligating the company to reemploy the employees at once, Arbiter RJ advised them to just settle with the employer, that is, accept the counteroffer. Otherwise the case would drag some more.

Question No. 2 from Adela: where else could drag a case that has been judged final and executory by the highest court of the land?

Adela questioned the actuations of Arbiter RJ and Atty. DA. In turn, they said they would cut her off from her remaining 40-percent back wages until she comes around to accepting their terms. She consulted other lawyers, who told her that hers is not the first such predicament.

Question No. 3 from Adela: Is this justice?

*    *    *

Atty. Marlon Anthony Tonson can’t let pass two prominent Ateneo Law grads’ claim about plagiarism:

”It is also an inaccuracy to say, ‘Ateneo Graduate Schools, including Ateneo Law, allegedly aren’t part of and so unbound by Loyola Schools’ stricture against copying others’ works.’ It is, at least as of November 9, 2010, when Ateneo Law School Dean Cesar Villanueva said in a phone interview: ‘The resolution of the Supreme Court on the plagiarism complaint against Justice Del Castillo is already resolved and we live by that. But as an academic institution, we have maintained our definition of plagiarism. Insofar as the thesis work of our students [is concerned], we abide by our 2010 Rules on Plagiarism where the lack of malicious intent is not a defense.’ See www.gmanews.tv/story/205558/ateneo-law-to-stand-by-plagiarism-guidelines-despite-sc-ruling.”

Thanks to other readers who keep me company: Gilbert Arbon, Herbert Vego, Helen Limjoco, Bienvenido Gaurino, Bobby Tordesillas, Virginia (giesan1), Carlos Magat, Eric de Quiros, Reynoso Garcia, Arturo Santos, Benjamin Cobangbang, Romy Villarama, Andy Yap, Reynaldo Reyes, Lester Ocampo, Romy K, Heidi Radean, Nelly Dayon-Duckett, Rico Magat.

*    *    *

”People take their time in life because they are not convinced of an afterlife. But sometimes because they are!” Shafts of Light, Fr. Guido Arguelles, SJ

*    *    *

E-mail: [email protected]