CA bars Piatco employees from intervening in expropriation case vs govt

MANILA, Philippines - Employees of the Philippine International Air Terminals Co. (Piatco) suffered a legal setback after the Court of Appeals affirmed a Pasay court’s decision disallowing them from intervening in the expropriation case between the company and the government. In a 13-page decision, the CA 15th Division affirmed the ruling of Pasay City regional trial court Judge Jesus Mupas that denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of the decision issued by the late Judge Hendrick Gingoyon. Gingoyon, who first handled the Piatco case, had denied their motion to intervene in the expropriation case. Piatco is the builder of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 3 (Naia-3). In coming up with the decision, the appellate court ruled that the alleged legal interests of Piatco employees in the expropriation case cannot be considered “actual, substantial, material, direct or immediate” because they do not own the property being condemned in the case’s proceedings. “While this court commiserates with petitioners and shares the view that they should indeed be sufficiently compensated for the services they rendered, we do not agree with their contention that the same could serve as sufficient ground for them to intervene in the expropriation proceedings being conducted by the trial court,” the CA ruled. The CA further said that National Labor Relations Commission, and not the expropriation proceedings, is the proper venue for the petitioners’ cause. Court records, on December 21, 2004, the government filed with the Pasay court a complaint for expropriation of the Naia 3 against Piatco, and which was eventually raffled to the sala of Gingoyon. On January 13, 2005, the Piatco employees led by Gina Alnas filed a motion for intervention and to admit answer in intervention in the expropriation case, contending that they should be allowed to intervene on the basis of their being Filipino citizens and taxpayers. They pointed out that as employees of Piatco, they “toiled with the necessary expectancy of being properly compensated for their efforts,” and that a portion of Piatco’s revenue out of the project has been committed to pay for their salaries and benefits. The Pasay court initially granted their motion on October 27, 2005, but consequently, the government through the Office of Solicitor General, the plaintiff in the expropriation case, sought a reconsideration of that decision. On December 13, 2005, the trial court granted the OSG’s motion and issued the first assailed Order denied the employees’ motion. A motion for reconsideration was filed by Piatco employees, but this was likewise denied by the Pasay RTC on August 8, 2006, prompting them to raise the matter with the CA. - GMANews.TV