SECOND DIVISION

[G. R. No.101738. April 12, 2000]

PAPER INDUSTRIES CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, Undersecretary of Labor and Employment, HON. HENRY PABEL, Director of the Department of Labor and Employment Regional Office No. XI and/or the Representation Officer of the Industrial Relations Division who will act for and in his behalf, PCOP- BISLIG SUPERVISORY AND TECHNICAL STAFF EMPLOYEES UNION, ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION and FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

DE LEON, JR., J.: Miso

Before us is a petition for certiorari seeking to annul the Resolution[1] and the Order[2] dated April 17, 1991 and August 7, 1991, respectively, of public respondent Bienvenido E. Laguesma, acting then as Undersecretary, now the Secretary, of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), which reversed the Order dated March 27, 1990[3] of Med-Arbiter Phibun D. Pura declaring that supervisors and section heads of petitioner under its new organizational structure are managerial employees and should be excluded from the list of voters for the purpose of a certification election among supervisory and technical staff employees of petitioner.[4]

The facts of the case are the following:

Petitioner Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines (PICOP) is engaged in the manufacture of paper and timber products, with principal place of operations at Tabon, Bislig, Surigao del Sur. It has over 9,000[5] employees, 944[6] of whom are supervisory and technical staff employees. More or less 487 of these supervisory and technical staff employees are signatory members of the private respondent PICOP-Bislig Supervisory and Technical Staff Employees Union (PBSTSEU).[7]

On August 9, 1989. PBSTSEU instituted a Petition[8] for Certification Election to determine the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the supervisory and technical staff employees of PICOP for collective bargaining agreement (CBA) purposes.

In a Notice[9] dated August 10, 1989, the initial hearing of the petition was set on August 18, 1989 but it was reset to August 25, 1989, at the instance of PICOP, as it requested a fifteen (15) day period within which to file its comments and/or position paper. But PICOP failed to file any comment or position paper. Meanwhile, private respondents Federation of Free Workers (FFW) and Associated Labor Union (ALU) filed their respective petitions for intervention.

On September 14, 1989, Med-Arbiter Arturo L. Gamolo issued an Order[10] granting the petitions for interventions of the FFW and ALU. Another Order[11] issued on the same day set the holding of a certification election among PICOP's supervisory and technical staff employees in Tabon, Bislig, Surigao del Sur, with four (4) choices, namely: (1) PBSTSEU; (2) FFW; (3) ALU; and (4) no union. Nex old

On September 21, 1989, PICOP appealed[12] the Order which set the holding of the certification election contending that the Med-Arbiter committed grave abuse of discretion in deciding the case without giving PICOP the opportunity to file its comments/answer, and that PBSTSEU had no personality to file the petition for certification election.

After PBSTSEU filed its Comments[13] to petitioner's appeal, the Secretary of the Labor[14] issued a Resolution[15] dated November 17, 1989 which upheld the Med-Arbiter's Order dated September 17, 1989, with modification allowing the supervising and staff employees in Cebu, Davao and Iligan City to participate in the certification election.

During the pre-election conference on January 18, 1990, PICOP questioned and objected to the inclusion of some section heads and supervisors in the list of voters whose positions it averred were reclassified as managerial employees in the light of the reorganization effected by it.[16] Under the Revised Organizational Structure of the PICOP, the company was divided into four (4) main business groups, namely: Paper Products Business, Timber Products Business, Forest Resource Business and Support Services Business. A vice- president or assistant vice-president heads each of these business groups. A division manager heads the divisions comprising each business group. A department manager heads the departments comprising each division. Section heads and supervisors, now called section managers and unit managers, head the sections and independent units, respectively, comprising each department.[17] PICOP advanced the view that considering the alleged present authority of these section managers and unit managers to hire and fire, they are classified as managerial employees, and hence, ineligible to form or join any labor organization.[18] Mani kx

Following the submission by the parties of their respective position papers[19] and evidence[20] on this issue, Med-Arbiter Phibun D. Pura issued an Order[21] dated March 27, 1990, holding that supervisors and section heads of the petitioner are managerial employees and therefore excluded from the list of voters for purposes of certification election.

PBSTSEU appealed[22] the Order of the Med-Arbiter to the Office of the Secretary, DOLE. ALU likewise appealed.[23] PICOP submitted evidence militating against the appeal.[24] Public respondent Bienvenido E. Laguesma, acting as the then Undersecretary of Labor, issued the assailed Order[25] dated April 17, 1991 setting aside the Order dated March 27, 1990 of the Med-Arbiter and declaring that the subject supervisors and section heads are supervisory employees eligible to vote in the certification election.

PICOP sought[26] reconsideration of the Order dated April 7, 1991. However, public respondent in his Order[27] dated August 7, 1991 denied PICOP's motion for reconsideration.

Hence, this petition.

PICOP anchors its petition on two (2) grounds, to wit: Maniks

I.

THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT HONORABLE BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, UNDERSECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, IN A CAPRICIOUS, ARBITRARY AND WHIMSICAL EXERCISE OF POWER ERRED AND COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, TANTAMOUNT TO ACTING WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN HE DENIED YOUR PETITIONER'S PLEA TO PRESENT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT SOME OF ITS MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEES ARE DISQUALIFIED FROM JOINING OR FORMING A UNION REPRESENTED BY CO-RESPONDENT PBSTSEU, IN VIEW OF A SUPERVENING EVENT BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE CHANGES IN THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF YOUR PETITIONER WHICH WAS FULLY IMPLEMENTED IN JANUARY 1991 AFTER THE CASE WAS ELEVATED ON APPEAL AND SUBMITTED FOR DECISION.

II.

THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT, HONORABLE BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, ALSO ERRED AND COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, TANTAMOUNT TO ARBITRARILY ACTING WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN HE TOTALLY DISREGARDED THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SO FAR SUBMITTED BY YOUR PETITIONER AND RELIED MAINLY ON THE UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM AND MERE ALLEGATIONS OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT, PBSTSEU, THAT THE REORGANIZATION OF YOUR PETITIONER WAS A SHAM AND CALCULATED MERELY TO FRUSTRATE THE UNIONIZATION OF YOUR PETITIONER'S SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL; AND SOLELY ON THIS BASIS, DENIED YOUR PETITIONER'S URGENT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.[28] Manikan

PICOP's main thesis is that the positions Section Heads and Supervisors, who have been designated as Section Managers and Unit Managers, as the case may be, were converted to managerial employees under the decentralization and reorganization program it implemented in 1989. Being managerial employees, with alleged authority to hire and fire employees, they are ineligible for union membership under Article 245[29] of the Labor Code. Furthermore, PICOP contends that no malice should be imputed against it for implementing its decentralization program only after the petition for certification election was filed inasmuch as the same is a valid exercise of its management prerogative, and that said program has long been in the drawing boards of the company, which was realized only in 1989 and fully implemented in 1991. PICOP emphatically stresses that it could not have conceptualized the decentralization program only for the purpose of "thwarting the right of the concerned employees to self-organization."

The petition, not being meritorious, must fail and the same should be as it is hereby dismissed.

First. In United Pepsi-Co/a Supervisory Union (UPSU) v. Laguesma,[30] we had occasion to elucidate on the term "managerial employees." Managerial employees are ranked as Top Managers, Middle Managers and First Line Managers. Top and Middle Managers have the authority to devise, implement and control strategic and operational policies while the task of First-Line Managers is simply to ensure that such policies are carried out by the rank-and- file employees of an organization. Under this distinction, "managerial employees" therefore fall in two (2) categories, namely, the "managers" per se composed of Top and Middle Managers, and the "supervisors" composed of First-Line Managers.[31] Thus, the mere fact that an employee is designated manager" does not ipso facto make him one. Designation should be reconciled with the actual job description of the employee,[32] for it is the job description that determines the nature of employment.[33] Oldmis o

In the petition before us, a thorough dissection of the job description[34] of the concerned supervisory employees and section heads indisputably show that they are not actually managerial but only supervisory employees since they do not lay down company policies. PICOP's contention that the subject section heads and unit managers exercise the authority to hire and fire[35] is ambiguous and quite misleading for the reason that any authority they exercise is not supreme but merely advisory in character. Theirs is not a final determination of the company policies inasmuch as any action taken by them on matters relative to hiring, promotion, transfer, suspension and termination of employees is still subject to confirmation and approval by their respective superior.[36] Thus, where such power, which is in effect recommendatory in character, is subject to evaluation, review and final action by the department heads and other higher executives of the company, the same, although present, is not effective and not an exercise of independent judgment as required by law.[37]

Second. No denial of due process can be ascribed to public respondent Undersecretary Laguesma for the latter's denial to allow PICOP to present additional evidence on the implementation of its program inasmuch as in the appeal before the said public respondent, PICOP even then had already submitted voluminous supporting documents.[38] The record of the case is replete with position papers and exhibits that dealt with the main thesis it relied upon. What the law prohibits is the lack of opportunity to be heard.[39] PICOP has long harped on its contentions and these were dealt upon and resolved in detail by public respondent Laguesma. We see no reason or justification to deviate from his assailed resolutions for the reason that law and jurisprudence aptly support them.

Finally, considering all the foregoing, the fact that PICOP voiced out its objection to the holding of certification election, despite numerous opportunities to ventilate the same, only after respondent Undersecretary of Labor affirmed the holding thereof, simply bolstered the public respondents' conclusion that PICOP raised the issue merely to prevent and thwart the concerned section heads and supervisory employees from exercising a right granted them by law. Needless to stress, no obstacle must be placed to the holding of certification elections, for it is a statutory policy that should not be circumvented.[40]

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED, and the Resolution and Order of public respondent Bienvenido E. Laguesma dated April 17, 1991 and August 17, 1991, respectively, finding the subject supervisors and section heads as supervisory employees eligible to vote in the certification election are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

UNITED PEPSI-COLA SUPERVISORY UNION (UPSU),vs.HON. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMAFACTS:Petitioner is a union of supervisory employees. It appears that on March 20, 1995 the union fileda petition for certification election on behalf of the route managers at Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc.However, its petition was denied by the med-arbiter and, on appeal, by the Secretary of Labor andEmployment, on the ground that the route managers are managerial employees and, therefore, ineligible for union membership under the first sentence of Art. 245 of the Labor Code, which provides: Ineligibility of managerial employees to join any labor organization;right of supervisoryemployees.Managerial employees are not eligible to join, assist or form any labor organization.Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form separate labor organizations of their own.Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, pressing for resolution its contention that the first sentence of Art. 245 of the Labor Code, so far as it declares managerial employees to be ineligible to form, assist or join unions, contravenes Art. III,8 of the Constitution which provides:The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to formunions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.ISSUES:1) whether or not the route managers at Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. are managerial employeesand2) whether or not Art. 245, insofar as it prohibits managerial employees from forming, joining or assistinglabor unions, violates Art. III, 8 of the Constitution.RULING:1)YES. The route managers cannot thus possibly be classified as mere supervisors because their work does not only involve, but goes far beyond, the simple direction or supervision of operatingemployees to accomplish objectives set by those above them. They are not mere functionaries withsimple oversight functions but business administrators in their own right.supervisory employees are those who, in the interest of the employer, effectivelyrecommend suchmanagerial actions if the exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature butrequires the use of independent judgment." Thus, their only power is to recommend. Certainly, theroute managers in this case more than merely recommend effective management action. They performoperational, human resource, financial and marketing functions for the company, all of which involvethe laying down of operating policies for themselves and their teamsThe term "manager" generally refers to "anyone who is responsible for subordinates and other organizational resources." Managers constitute three levels of a pyramid:FIRST-LINE MANAGERS: The lowest level in an organization at which individuals are responsiblefor the work of others is calledfirst-line or first-level management . First-line managers direct operatingemployees only; they do not supervise other managers

MIDDLE MANAGERS:Middle managers direct the activities of other managers and sometimes alsothose of operating employees. Middle managers' principal responsibilities are to direct the activitiesthat implement their organizations' policies and to balance the demands of their superiors with thecapacities of their subordinatesTOP MANAGERS:Composed of a comparatively small group of executives,top management isresponsible for the overall management of the organization. It establishes operating policies and guidesthe organization's interactions with its environmentIn the Case, entitledWorker's Alliance Trade Union (WATU) v.Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc.,decided on November 13, 1991, the Secretary of Labor found: we find that only those employeesoccupying the position of route manager and accounting manager are managerial employees.2)NO. The real intent of Art. III, 8 is evident in Lerums proposal. The Commission intended theabsolute right to organize of government workers, supervisory employees, and security guards to be constitutionally guaranteed. By implication, no similar absolute constitutional right to organizefor labor purposes should be deemed to have been granted to top-level and middle managers. Nor is the guarantee of organizational right in Art. III,8 infringed by a ban against managerialemployees forming a union. The right guaranteed in Art. III,8 is subject to the condition that itsexercise should be for purposes "not contrary to law." In the case of Art. 245, there is a rational basisfor prohibiting managerial employees from forming or joining labor organizationsIn Bulletin Publishing Co., Inc.v. Hon.AugustoSanchez, this Court elaborated on this rationale,thus:The rationale for this inhibition has been stated to be, because if thesemanagerial employees would belong to or be affiliated with a Union, the latter might not be assured of their loyalty to the Union in view of evident conflict of interests. The Union can also become company-dominated with the presence of managerial employees in Union membership.

Central Negros Electric Cooperative vs DOLEGR 94045

Facts:

On August 15, 1987, CENECO entered into a collective bargaining agreement with CURE, a labor union representing its rank-and-file employees, providing for a term of three years retroactive to April 1, 1987 and extending up to March 31, 1990. On December 28, 1989, CURE wrote CENECO proposing that negotiations be conducted for a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA).

On January 18, 1990, CENECO denied CUREs request on the ground that, under applicable decisions of the Supreme Court, employees who at the same time are members of an electric cooperative are not entitled to form or join a union.

Prior to the submission of the proposal for CBA renegotiation, CURE members, in a general assembly held on December 9, 1989, approved Resolution No. 35 whereby it was agreed that tall union members shall withdraw, retract, or recall the union members membership from Central Negros Electric Cooperative, Inc. in order to avail (of) the full benefits under the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into by and between CENECO and CURE, and the supposed benefits that our union may avail of under the renewed CBA.

However, the withdrawal from membership was denied by CENECO on February 27, 1990 under Resolution No. 90.

Issue: WON the employees of CENECO who withdrew their membership from the cooperative are entitled to form or join CURE for purposes of the negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement proposed by the latter.

Held:

The right of the employees to self-organization is a compelling reason why their withdrawal from the cooperative must be allowed. As pointed out by CURE, the resignation of the member- employees is an expression of their preference for union membership over that of membership in the cooperative. The avowed policy of the State to afford fall protection to labor and to promote the primacy of free collective bargaining mandates that the employees right to form and join unions for purposes of collective bargaining be accorded the highest consideration.

Thus, member employees of a cooperative may withdraw as members of the cooperative in order to join labor union. Membership in a cooperative is voluntary; inherent in it is the right not to join.

NOTES: (San Jose Electric Service Cooperative vs. Ministry of Labor)

1. A cooperative, therefore, is by its nature different from an ordinary business concern being run either, by persons, partnerships or corporations. Its owners and/or members are the ones who run and operate the business while the others are its employees.

2. An employee therefore of such a cooperative who is a member and co-owner thereof cannot invoke the right to collective bargaining for certainly an owner cannot bargain with himself or his co-owners. Employees of cooperatives who are themselves members of the cooperative have no right to form or join labor organizations for purposes of collective bargaining for being themselves co-owners of the cooperative.

3. However, in so far as it involves cooperatives with employees who are not members or co-owners thereof, certainly such employees are entitled to exercise the rights of all workers to organization, collective bargaining, negotiations and others as are enshrined in the Constitution and existing laws of the country.

Today is Friday, December 19, 2014search

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 79025.December 29, 1989.

BENGUET ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., petitioner,vs.HON. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, and BENECO EMPLOYEES LABOR UNION, respondents.

E.L. Gayo & Associates for petitioner.

CORTES, J.:

On June 21, 1985 Beneco Worker's Labor Union-Association of Democratic Labor Organizations (hereinafter referred to as BWLU- ADLO) filed a petition for direct certification as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all the rank and file employees of Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as BENECO) at Alapang, La Trinidad, Benguet alleging, inter alia, that BENECO has in its employ two hundred and fourteen (214) rank and file employees; that one hundred and ninety-eight (198) or 92.5% of these employees have supported the filing of the petition; that no certification election has been conducted for the last 12 months; that there is no existing collective bargaining representative of the rank and file employees sought to represented by BWLU- ADLO; and, that there is no collective bargaining agreement in the cooperative.

An opposition to the petition was filed by the Beneco Employees Labor Union (hereinafter referred to as BELU) contending that it was certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the subject workers pursuant to an order issued by the med-arbiter on October 20,1980; that pending resolution by the National Labor Relations Commission are two cases it filed against BENECO involving bargaining deadlock and unfair labor practice; and, that the pendency of these cases bars any representation question.

BENECO, on the other hand, filed a motion to dismiss the petition claiming that it is a non-profit electric cooperative engaged in providing electric services to its members and patron-consumers in the City of Baguio and Benguet Province; and, that the employees sought to be represented by BWLU-ADLO are not eligible to form, join or assist labor organizations of their own choosing because they are members and joint owners of the cooperative.

On September 2, 1985 the med-arbiter issued an order giving due course to the petition for certification election. However, the med-arbiter limited the election among the rank and file employees of petitioner who are non-members thereof and without any involvement in the actual ownership of the cooperative. Based on the evidence during the hearing the med-arbiter found that there are thirty-seven (37) employees who are not members and without any involvement in the actual ownership of the cooperative. The dispositive portion of the med-arbiter's order is as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, a certification election should be as it is hereby ordered to be conducted at the premises of Benguet, Electric Cooperative, Inc., at Alapang, La Trinidad, Benguet within twenty (20) days from receipt hereof among all the rank and file employees (non-members/consumers and without any involvement in the actual ownership of the cooperative) with the following choices:

1.BENECO WORKERS LABOR UNION-ADLO

2.BENECO EMPLOYEES LABOR UNION

3.NO UNION

The payroll for the month of June 1985 shall be the basis in determining the qualified voters who may participate in the certification election to be conducted.

SO ORDERED. [Rollo, pp. 22-23.]

BELU and BENECO appealed from this order but the same was dismissed for lack of merit on March 25,1986. Whereupon BENECO filed with this Court a petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction and /or restraining order, docketed as G.R. No. 74209, which the Supreme Court dismissed for lack of merit in a minute resolution dated April 28, 1986.

The ordered certification election was held on October 1, 1986. Prior to the conduct thereof BENECO's counsel verbally manifested that "the cooperative is protesting that employees who are members-consumers are being allowed to vote when . . . they are not eligible to be members of any labor union for purposes of collective bargaining; much less, to vote in this certification election." [Rollo, p. 28]. Petitioner submitted a certification showing that only four (4) employees are not members of BENECO and insisted that only these employees are eligible to vote in the certification election. Canvass of the votes showed that BELU garnered forty-nine (49) of the eighty-three (83) "valid" votes cast.

Thereafter BENECO formalized its verbal manifestation by filing a Protest. Finding, among others, that the issue as to whether or not member-consumers who are employees of BENECO could form, assist or join a labor union has been answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 74209, the med-arbiter dismissed the protest on February 17, 1987. On June 23, 1987, Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) director Pura Ferrer-Calleja affirmed the med-arbiter's order and certified BELU as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the rank and file employees of BENECO.

Alleging that the BLR director committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction BENECO filed the instant petition for certiorari. In his Comment the Solicitor General agreed with BENECO's stance and prayed that the petition be given due course. In view of this respondent director herself was required by the Court to file a Comment. On April 19, 1989 the Court gave due course to the petition and required the parties to submit their respective memoranda.

The main issue in this case is whether or not respondent director committed grave abuse of discretion in certifying respondent BELU as the sole and exclusive bargaining representtative of the rank and file employees of BENECO.

Under Article 256 of the Labor Code [Pres. Decree 442] to have a valid certification election, "at least a majority of all eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes. The labor union receiving the majority of the valid votes cast shall be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of all workers in the unit." Petitioner BENECO asserts that the certification election held on October 1, 1986 was null and void since members-employees of petitioner cooperative who are not eligible to form and join a labor union for purposes of collective bargaining were allowed to vote therein.

Respondent director and private respondent BELU on the other hand submit that members of a cooperative who are also rank and file employees are eligible to form, assist or join a labor union [Comment of Respondent Director, p. 4; Rollo, p. 125; Comment of BELU, pp. 9-10; Rollo pp. 99-100].

The Court finds the present petition meritorious.

The issue of whether or not employees of a cooperative are qualified to form or join a labor organization for purposes of collective bargaining has already been resolved and clarified in the case of Cooperative Rural Bank of Davao City, Inc. vs. Ferrer Calleja, et al. [G.R. No. 7795, September 26,1988] and reiterated in the cases of Batangas-Electric Cooperative Labor Union v. Young, et al. [G.R. Nos. 62386, 70880 and 74560 November 9, 1988] and San Jose City Electric Service Cooperative, Inc. v. Ministry of Labor and Employment, et al. [G.R. No. 77231, May 31, 1989] wherein the Court had stated that the right to collective bargaining is not available to an employee of a cooperative who at the same time is a member and co-owner thereof. With respect, however, to employees who are neither members nor co-owners of the cooperative they are entitled to exercise the rights to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiation as mandated by the 1987 Constitution and applicable statutes.

Respondent director argues that to deny the members of petitioner cooperative the right to form, assist or join a labor union of their own choice for purposes of collective bargaining would amount to a patent violation of their right to self-organization. She points out that:

Albeit a person assumes a dual capacity as rank and file employee and as member of a certain cooperative does not militate, as in the instant case, against his/her exercise of the right to self-organization and to collective bargaining guaranteed by the Constitution and Labor Code because, while so doing, he/she is acting in his/her capacity as rank and file employee thereof. It may be added that while the employees concerned became members of petitioner cooperative, their status employment as rank and filers who are hired for fixed compensation had not changed. They still do not actually participate in the management of the cooperative as said function is entrusted to the Board of Directors and to the elected or appointed officers thereof. They are not vested with the powers and prerogatives to lay down and execute managerial policies; to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees; and/or to effectively recommend such managerial functions [Comment of Respondent Director, p. 4; Rollo, p. 125.]

Private respondent BELU concurs with the above contention of respondent director and, additionally, claims that since membership in petitioner cooperative is only nominal, the rank and file employees who are members thereof should not be deprived of their right to self-organization.

The above contentions are untenable. Contrary to respondents' claim, the fact that the members-employees of petitioner do not participate in the actual management of the cooperative does not make them eligible to form, assist or join a labor organization for the purpose of collective bargaining with petitioner. The Court's ruling in the Davao City case that members of cooperative cannot join a labor union for purposes of collective bargaining was based on the fact that as members of the cooperative they are co-owners thereof. As such, they cannot invoke the right to collective bargaining for "certainly an owner cannot bargain with himself or his co-owners." [Cooperative Rural Bank of Davao City, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja, et al., supra]. It is the fact of ownership of the cooperative, and not involvement in the management thereof, which disqualifies a member from joining any labor organization within the cooperative. Thus, irrespective of the degree of their participation in the actual management of the cooperative, all members thereof cannot form, assist or join a labor organization for the purpose of collective bargaining.

Respondent union further claims that if nominal ownership in a cooperative is "enough to take away the constitutional protections afforded to labor, then there would be no hindrance for employers to grant, on a scheme of generous profit sharing, stock bonuses to their employees and thereafter claim that since their employees are not stockholders [of the corporation], albeit in a minimal and involuntary manner, they are now also co-owners and thus disqualified to form unions." To allow this, BELU argues, would be "to allow the floodgates of destruction to be opened upon the rights of labor which the Constitution endeavors to protect and which welfare it promises to promote." [Comment of BELU, p. 10; Rollo, p. 100].

The above contention of respondent union is based on the erroneous presumption that membership in a cooperative is the same as ownership of stocks in ordinary corporations. While cooperatives may exercise some of the rights and privileges given to ordinary corporations provided under existing laws, such cooperatives enjoy other privileges not granted to the latter [See Sections 4, 5, 6, and 8, Pres. Decree No. 175; Cooperative Rural Bank of Davao City v. Ferrer-Calleja, supra]. Similarly, members of cooperatives have rights and obligations different from those of stockholders of ordinary corporations. It was precisely because of the special nature of cooperatives, that the Court held in the Davao City case that members-employees thereof cannot form or join a labor union for purposes of collective bargaining. The Court held that:

A cooperative ... is by its nature different from an ordinary business concern being run either by persons, partnerships, or corporations. Its owners and/or members are the ones who run and operate the business while the others are its employees. As above stated, irrespective of the number of shares owned by each member they are entitled to cast one vote each in deciding upon the affairs of the cooperative. Their share capital earn limited interest. They enjoy special privileges as-exemption from income tax and sales taxes, preferential right to supply their products to State agencies and even exemption from the minimum wage laws.

An employee therefore of such a cooperative who is a member and co-owner thereof cannot invoke the right to collective bargaining for certainly an owner cannot bargain with himself or his co-owners.

It is important to note that, in her order dated September 2, 1985, med-arbiter Elnora V. Balleras made a specific finding that there are only thirty-seven (37) employees of petitioner who are not members of the cooperative and who are, therefore, the only employees of petitioner cooperative eligible to form or join a labor union for purposes of collective bargaining [Annex "A" of the Petition, p. 12; Rollo, p. 22]. However, the minutes of the certification election [Annex "C" of the Petition: Rollo, p. 28] show that a total of eighty-three (83) employees were allowed to vote and of these, forty-nine (49) voted for respondent union. Thus, even if We agree with respondent union's contention that the thirty seven (37) employees who were originally non-members of the cooperative can still vote in the certification election since they were only "forced and compelled to join the cooperative on pain of disciplinary action," the certification election held on October 1, 1986 is still null and void since even those who were already members of the cooperative at the time of the issuance of the med-arbiter's order, and therefore cannot claim that they were forced to join the union were allowed to vote in the election.

Article 256 of the Labor Code provides, among others, that:

To have a valid, election, at least a majority of all eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes. The labor union receiving the majority of the valid votes cast shall be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of all workers in the unit . . . [Italics supplied.]

In this case it cannot be determined whether or not respondent union was duly elected by the eligible voters of the bargaining unit since even employees who are ineligible to join a labor union within the cooperative because of their membership therein were allowed to vote in the certification election. Considering the foregoing, the Court finds that respondent director committed grave abuse of discretion in certifying respondent union as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the rank and file employees of petitioner cooperative.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED and the assailed resolution of respondent director is ANNULLED. The certification election conducted on October 1, 1986, is SET ASIDE. The Regional Office No. 1 of San Fernando, La Union is hereby directed to immediately conduct new certification election proceedings among the rank and file employees of the petitioner who are not members of the cooperative.

SO ORDERED.

Today is Friday, December 19, 2014search

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 77951September 26, 1988

COOPERATIVE RURAL BANK OF DAVAO CITY, INC., petitioner,vs.PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, MOLE, MANILA; FELIZARDO T. SERAPIO, MED-ARBITER DESIGNATE, REGIONAL OFFICE NO. XI, MOLE, DAVAO CITY; and FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS, respondents.

Herbert P. Artes for petitioner.

The Solicitor General for Public respondent.

GANCAYCO, J.:

This is a Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court where the issue is whether or not the employees of a cooperative can organize themselves for purposes of collective bargaining.

The record of the case discloses that the herein petitioner Cooperative Rural Bank of Davao City, Inc. is a cooperative banking corporation operating in Davao City. It is owned in part by the Government and its employees are members and co-owners of the same. The petitioner has around 16 rank-and-file employees. As of August, 1986, there was no existing collective bargaining agreement between the said employees and the establishment. On the other hand, the herein private respondent Federation of Free Workers is a labor organization registered with the Department of Labor and Employment. It is interested in representing the said employees for purposes of collective bargaining.

On August 27, 1986, the private respondent filed with the Davao City Regional Office of the then Ministry of Labor and Employment a verified Petition for certification election among the rank-and-file employees of the petitioner. 1 The same was docketed as Case No. R-325 ROXI MED-UR-73-86. On September 18, 1986, the herein public respondent issued an Order granting the Petition for certification election.

On October 3, 1986, the petitioner filed an Appeal Memorandum and sought a reversal of the Order of the Med-Arbiter. 2 The petitioner argues therein that, among others, a cooperative is not covered by the Rules governing certification elections inasmuch as it is not an institution operating for profit. The petitioner also adds that two of the alleged rank-and-file employees seeking the certification election are managerial employees disqualified from joining concerted labor activities. In sum, the petitioner insists that its employees are disqualified from forming labor organizations for purposes of collective bargaining.

On October 8, 1986, the private respondent filed a "Motion to Dismiss the Appeal." On October 15, 1986, the petitioner filed its opposition to the said Motion.

On February 11, 1987, the herein public respondent Bureau of Labor Relations Director Pura Ferrer-Calleja issued a Resolution affirming the Order of the Med-Arbiter and dismissing the Appeal. 3 The pertinent portions of the said Resolution are as follows

It is beyond doubt that respondent-appellant, Cooperative Rural Bank of Davao City falls within the purview of Article 212, paragraph C of the Labor Code, acting as such in the interest of an employer. To argue otherwise would amount to closing one's eyes to the realities of today's cooperative banking institutions. ....

Moreover, basic is the right of every worker in any establishment whether operated for profit or not to organize and engage in concerted activity, mutually beneficial to their interest. Such right is sacredly enshrined and protected in our fundamental law, granting every worker the right to organize into a collective group and engage in concerted activities for purposes of promoting their well being, subject only to such limitations as may be provided for by law.

xxxxxxxxx

As this Office has consistently ruled and applied in various cases, being a member of a cooperative organization does not preclude one from forming or joining a labor union provided that such person or persons are not among those disqualified by law. Nowhere in the records can we find any piece of evidence showing that the signatories in the petition are among those disqualified to form or join a union.

Finally, we cannot give credence to (the) employer's allegation that two of the signatories thereof, are managerial employees, since no evidence showing such fact can be found from the records.

xxxxxxxxx

In a Motion dated March 2, 1987, the petitioner asked for a reconsideration of the said Resolution. 4 The petitioner reiterated therein its view that its employees are disqualified from forming the labor organization so contemplated. The petitioner also called attention to an Opinion rendered by then Solicitor General and Minister of Justice Estelito P. Mendoza dated August 14, 1981. 5 The Opinion states that employees of an electric cooperative who are themselves members/co-owners of the same cannot form or join labor organizations for purposes of collective bargaining. The Opinion also states that the duty to bargain exists only between an employer and his/its employees, and that an employer has no duty to bargain with his co-owners of a corporation who are also its employees. The petitioner submits that the said Opinion calls for application in the present controversy.

On March 26, 1987, director Calleja issued a Resolution denying the reconsideration sought by the petitioner. 6 Thus, the certification election was scheduled in the morning of April 23, 1987.

Finding the action taken by the Bureau unsatisfactory, the petitioner brought the case directly to this Court on April 9, 1987 by way of the instant Petition for certiorari. The petitioner maintains that the public respondents both acted without jurisdiction or in excess thereof, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, in allowing the certification election sought by the private respondent despite the arguments of the petitioner in opposition thereto. The petitioner reiterates its argument that employees of cooperatives who are members and co-owners of the same cannot form and join labor organizations for purposes of collective bargaining.

On April 15, 1987, this Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the Bureau of Labor Relations from proceeding with the certification election scheduled on April 23, 1987. 7 The certification election nonetheless pushed through as scheduled for the alleged reason that the temporary restraining order was not seasonably transmitted to Davao City. 8

This court also required the respondents to file their Comment on the Petition. The respondents complied as instructed. The Office of the Solicitor General represented the public respondents.

The Solicitor General intimated to this Court that the instant Petition has been rendered moot and academic inasmuch as the certification election sought to be enjoined had already been conducted. The Solicitor General added that the public respondents did not commit any jurisdictional error. 10

In due time, the parties submitted other pleadings. On January 6, 1988, the case was deemed submitted for decision.

After a careful examination of the entire record of the case, We find the instant Petition meritorious.

Contrary to the view espoused by the Solicitor General, this case cannot be considered moot and academic simply because the certification election sought to be enjoined went on as scheduled. The instant Petition is one for certiorari as a special civil action. Errors of jurisdiction on the part of the public respondents are alleged in the Petition itself. If the public respondents had indeed committed jurisdictional errors, the action taken by both the Med-Arbiter and the Bureau Director will be deemed null and void ab initio. 11 And if this were so, the certification election would, necessarily, have no legal justification. The arguments raised in the instant Petition strike at the very heart of the validity of the certification election itself.

We come now to the main aspect of the case.

Article 243 of the Labor Code 12 enumerates who are eligible to form, join, or assist labor organizations for purposes of collective bargaining, to wit

ART. 243. Coverage and employees' right to self-organization. All persons employed in commercial, industrial and agricultural enterprises and in religious, charitable, medical or educational institutions whether operating for profit or not, shall have the right to self-organization and to form, join, or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for purposes of collective bargaining. ....

The recognized exception to this enumeration is found in Article 245 of the same code, which provides for the ineligibility of managerial employees to join any labor reorganization, viz-

ART. 245.Ineligibility of managerial employees to join any labor organization. Managerial employees are not eligible to join, assist or form any labor organization.

From the foregoing provisions of law it would appear at first blush that all the rank and file employees of a cooperative who are not managerial employees are eligible to form, join or assist any labor organization of their own choosing for the purpose of collective bargaining.

However, under Section 2 of P.D. No. 175, a cooperative is defined to mean "organizations composed primarily of small producers and of consumers who voluntarily join together to form business enterprises which they themselves own, control, and patronize." Its creation and growth were declared as a policy of the State as a means of increasing the income and purchasing power of the low-income sector of the population in order to attain a more equitable distribution of income and wealth . 13 The principles governing it are:

a)Open membership"Should be voluntary and available without artificial restriction, or any social, political, racial or religious discrimination, to all persons who can make use of its services and are willing to accept responsibilities of membership;"

b)Democratic control."Irrespective of the number of shares owned, each member can only cast one vote in deciding upon the affairs of the cooperative;"

c)Limited interests to capital. "Share capital shall earn only limited interest, the maximum rate of interest to be established by the Department of Local Government and Community Development from time to time;" and

d)Patronage refund "Net income after the interest on capital has been paid shall be redistributed among the members in proposition to their patronage." 14

While cooperatives may exercise the same rights and privileges given to persons, partnership and corporations provided under existing laws, operate business enterprises of all kinds, establish rural banks, enjoy all the privileges and incentives granted by the NACIDA Act and other government agencies to business organizations under existing laws, to expropriate idle urban or rural lands for its purposes, to own and dispose of properties, enter into contracts, to sue and be sued and perform other acts necessary to pursue its objectives, 15 such cooperatives enjoy such privileges as:

a)Exemption from income tax and sales taxes;

b)Preferential right to supply rice, corn and other grains, and other commodities produced by them to State agencies administering price stabilization program; and

c)In appropriate cases, exemption from application of minimum wage law upon recommendation of the Bureau of Cooperative Development subject to the approval of the Secretary of Labor. 16

A cooperative development loan fund has been created for the development of the cooperative movement. 17

It may be, further stated that the Department of Local Govemment and Community Development through the Bureau of Cooperative Development is vested with full authority to promulgate rules and regulations to cover the promotion, organization, registration, regulation and supervision of all types of cooperatives. 18 Electric cooperatives, however, are under the regulation and supervision of the National Electrification Ad. Administration, 19 while it is the Monetary Board of the Central Bank that has exclusive responsibility and authority over the banking functions and operations of cooperative banks . 20

A cooperative, therefore, is by its nature different from an ordinary business concern, being run either by persons, partnerships, or corporations. Its owners and/or members are the ones who run and operate the business while the others are its employees. As above stated, irrespective of the number of shares owned by each member they are entitled to cast one vote each in deciding upon the affairs of the cooperative. Their share capital earn limited interests. They enjoy special privileges as exemption from income tax and sales taxes, preferential right to supply their products to State agencies and even exemption from the minimum wages laws.

An employee therefore of such a cooperative who is a member and co-owner thereof cannot invoke the right to collective bargaining for certainly an owner cannot bargain with himself or his co-owners. In the opinion of August 14, 1981 of the Solicitor General he correctly opined that employees of cooperatives who are themselves members of the cooperative have no right to form or join labor organizations for purposes of collective bargaining for being themselves co-owners of the cooperative. 21

However, in so far as it involves cooperatives with employees who are not members or co-owners thereof, certainly such employees are entitled to exercise the rights of all workers to organization, collective bargaining, negotiations and others as are enshrined in the Constitution and existing laws of the country. 22

The questioned ruling therefore of public respondent Pura Ferrer-Calleja must be upheld insofar as it refers to the employees of petitioner who are not members or co-owners of petitioner. It cannot extend to the other employees who are at the same time its members or co-owners.

The Court upholds the findings of said public respondent that no persuasive evidence has been presented to show that two of the signatories in the petition for certification election are managerial employees who under the law are disqualified from pursuing union activities.

WHEREFORE, the herein petition is hereby GRANTED and the resolution of public respondent Pura Ferrer-Calleja, Director, Bureau of Labor Relations, of February 11, 1987 is hereby MODIFIED to the effect that only the rank and file employees of petitioner who are not its members or co-owners are entitled to self-organization, collective bargaining, and negotiations, while the other employees who are members or co-owners thereof can not enjoy such right.

SO ORDERED.

JUST CAUSES OF TERMINATION1. ANITA-LLOSA TAN VS SILAHIS HOTEL MAY 27,19912. GOLD CITY INTEGRATED PORTS VS NLRC SEPTEMBER 21, 19903. ESCOBIN CS NLRC APRIL 15, 1998:4. CITIBANK VS GATCHALIAN JANUARY 18, 1995:LABOR VS NLRC SEPTEMBER 14, 1995:5. MABEZA VS HOTEL SUPREME APRIL 18, 1997RPROCEDURE:1. SHOEMART VS NLRC AUGUST 11, 19892. MANEJA VS NLRC JUNE 5, 1998STANDARDS OF DUE PROCESS:1. SHOPPERS GAIN VS NLRC JULY 26, 19962. MAGNOLIA DAIRY PRODUCTS VS NLRC JANUARY 29, 1996:3. ANSCOR TRANSPORT VS NLRC SEPTEMBER 28, 19904. HELLENIC PHIL VS E SIETE & NLRC MARCH 13, 1991PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION:1. GLOBE MACKAY VS NLRC MARCH 3, 1992FILING COMPLAINT FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL1. DAYAG VS CANIZARES, NLRC MARCH 6,1998CONSEQUENCES OF TERMINATION:1. PLDT VS NLRC AUGUST 23, 19882. REYES VS MIN LAB FEBRUARY 9, 19893. INDUSTRIAL TIMBER VS NLRC FEBRUARY 14, 19964. SANTOS VS NLRC SEPTEMBER 21, 1987:5. GEN BAPTIST BIBLE VS NLRC MARCH 5, 1993:6. BUSTAMANTE VS NLRC NOVEMBER 28, 19967. ALA MODE GARMENTS VS NLRC FEBRUARY 17, 19978. PHIL TOBACCO FLUE-CURING VS NLRC DECEMBER 10, 1998)9. GLOBE MACKAY VS NLRC MARCH 3, 1992)10. DV QUIJANO VS MERCURY DRUG JULY 8, 199811. MARANAO HOTEL VS NLRC NOVEMBER 16, 199412. SUARIO VS BPI, APRIL 25, 198913. PRIMERO VS IAC 156 SCRA 435= 1987:14. GARCIA VS NLRC 234 SCRA 632=1994PERSONS LIABLE FOR WRONGFUL DISMISSAL:1. SUNIO VS NLRC 127 SCRA 390=19842. ASIONICS PHIL VS NLRC MAY 19, 1998:3. PABALAN VS NLRC APRIL 20, 19904. UICHICO VS NLRC JUNE 2, 19975. SENTINEL SECURITY VS NLRC SEPTEMBER 3, 19986. ROSEWOOD CS NLRC MAY 21, 1998TERMINATION BY EMPLOYEE1. PHIMCO VS NLRC JUNE 11, 19972. CUSTODIO VS MOLE JULY 19, 19903. TRAVELAIRE & TOURS VS NLRC AUGUST 20, 1998CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL:1. PHILIPPINE JAPAN ACTIVE CARBON VS NLRC MARCH 8, 19892. V REYES VS NLRC AUGUST 31, 1989)3. CONCRETE AGGREGATES VS NLRC SEPTEMBER 7, 1989WHEN IS EMPLOYMENT NOT DEEMED TERMINATED?1. VALDEZ VS NLRC2. SENTINEL SECURITY VS NLRC SEPTEMBER 3, 19986. UFFY VS NLRC FEBRUARY 15, 19907. DIZON VS NLRC DECEMBER 14, 1989)

SECOND DIVISION[G.R. No. 110399. August 15, 1997]

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION SUPERVISORS AND EXEMPT UNION AND ERNESTO L. PONCE, President, petitioners, vs. HONARABLE BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA IN HIS CAPACITY AS UNDERSECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, HONORABLE DANILO L. REYNANTE IN HIS CAPACITY AS MED-ARBITER AND SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, respondents.D E C I S I O NROMERO, J.:

This is a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for the Issuance of Preliminary Injunction seeking to reverse and set aside the Order of public respondent, Undersecretary of the Department of Labor and Employment, Bienvenido E. Laguesma, dated March 11, 1993, in Case No. OS MA A-2-70-91[1] entitled In Re: Petition for Certification Election Among the Supervisory and Exempt Employees of the San Miguel Corporation Magnolia Poultry Plants of Cabuyao, San Fernando and Otis, San Miguel Corporation Supervisors and Exempt Union, Petitioner. The Order excluded the employees under supervisory levels 3 and 4 and the so-called exempt employees from the proposed bargaining unit and ruled out their participation in the certification election.

The antecedent facts are undisputed:

On October 5, 1990, petitioner union filed before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) a Petition for District Certification or Certification Election among the supervisors and exempt employees of the SMC Magnolia Poultry Products Plants of Cabuyao, San Fernando and Otis.

On December 19, 1990, Med-Arbiter Danilo L. Reynante issued an Order ordering the conduct of certification among the supervisors and exempt employees of the SMC Magnolia Poultry Products Plants of Cabuyao, San Fernando and Otis as one bargaining unit.

On January 18, 1991, respondent San Miguel Corporation filed a Notice of Appeal with Memorandum on Appeal, pointing out, among others, the Med-Arbiters error in grouping together all three (3) separate plants, Otis, Cabuyao and San Fernando, into one bargaining unit, and in including supervisory levels 3 and above whose positions are confidential in nature.

On July 23, 1991, the public respondent, Undersecretary Laguesma, granted respondent companys Appeal and ordered the remand of the case to the Med-Arbiter of origin for determination of the true classification of each of the employees sought to be included in the appropriate bargaining unit.

Upon petitioner-unions motion dated August 7, 1991, Undersecretary Laguesma granted the reconsideration prayed for on September 3, 1991 and directed the conduct of separate certification elections among the supervisors ranked as supervisory levels 1 to 4 (S1 to S4) and the exempt employees in each of the three plants at Cabuyao, San Fernando and Otis.

On September 21, 1991, respondent company, San Miguel Corporation filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to suspend proceedings.

On March 11, 1993, an Order was issued by the public respondent granting the Motion, citing the doctrine enunciated in Philips Industrial Development, Inc. v. NLRC[2] case. Said Order reads in part:

x x x Confidential employees, like managerial employees, are not allowed to form, join or assist a labor union for purposes of collective bargaining.

In this case, S3 and S4 and the so-called exempt employees are admittedly confidential employees and therefore, they are not allowed to form, join or assist a labor union for purposes of collective bargaining following the above courts ruling. Consequently, they are not allowed to participate in the certification election.

WHEREFORE, the motion is hereby granted and the Decision of this Office dated 03 September 1991 is hereby modified to the extent that employees under supervisory levels 3 and 4 (S3 and S4) and the so-called exempt employees are not allowed to join the proposed bargaining unit and are therefore excluded from those who could participate in the certification election.[3]

Hence this petition.

For resolution in this case are the following issues:

1. Whether Supervisory employees 3 and 4 and the exempt employees of the company are considered confidential employees, hence ineligible from joining a union.

2. If they are not confidential employees, do the employees of the three plants constitute an appropriate single bargaining unit.

On the first issue, this Court rules that said employees do not fall within the term confidential employees who may be prohibited from joining a union.

There is no question that the said employees, supervisors and the exempt employees, are not vested with the powers and prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, layoff, recall, discharge or dismiss employees. They are, therefore, not qualified to be classified as managerial employees who, under Article 245[4] of the Labor Code, are not eligible to join, assist or form any labor organization. In the very same provision, they are not allowed membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form separate labor organizations of their own. The only question that need be addressed is whether these employees are properly classified as confidential employees or not.

Confidential employees are those who (1) assist or act in a confidential capacity, (2) to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies in the field of labor relations.[5] The two criteria are cumulative, and both must be met if an employee is to be considered a confidential employee that is, the confidential relationship must exist between the employees and his supervisor, and the supervisor must handle the prescribed responsibilities relating to labor relations.[6]

The exclusion from bargaining units of employees who, in the normal course of their duties, become aware of management policies relating to labor relations is a principal objective sought to be accomplished by the confidential employee rule. The broad rationale behind this rule is that employees should not be placed in a position involving a potential conflict of interests.[7] Management should not be required to handle labor relations matters through employees who are represented by the union with the company is required to deal and who in the normal performance of their duties may obtain advance information of the companys position with regard to contract negotiations, the disposition of grievances, or other labor relations matters.[8]

There have been ample precedents in this regard, thus in Bulletin Publishing Company v. Hon. Augusto Sanchez,[9] the Court held that if these managerial employees would belong to or be affiliated with a Union, the latter might not be assured of their loyalty to the Union in view of evident conflict of interest. The Union can also become company-dominated with the presence of managerial employees in Union membership. The same rationale was applied to confidential employees in Golden Farms, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja[10] and in the more recent case of Philips Industrial Development, Inc. v. NLRC[11] which held that confidential employees, by the very nature of their functions, assist and act in a confidential capacity to, or have access to confidential matters of, persons who exercise managerial functions in the field of labor relations. Therefore, the rationale behind the ineligibility of managerial employees to form, assist or join a labor union was held equally applicable to them.[12]

An important element of the confidential employee rule is the employees need to use labor relations information. Thus, in determining the confidentiality of certain employees, a key questions frequently considered is the employees necessary access to confidential labor relations information.[13]

It is the contention of respondent corporation that Supervisory employees 3 and 4 and the exempt employees come within the meaning of the term confidential employees primarily because they answered in the affirmative when asked Do you handle confidential data or documents? in the Position Questionnaires submitted by the Union.[14] In the same questionnaire, however, it was also stated that the confidential information handled by questioned employees relate to product formulation, product standards and product specification which by no means relate to labor relations.[15]

Granting arguendo that an employee has access to confidential labor relations information but such is merely incidental to his duties and knowledge thereof is not necessary in the performance of such duties, said access does not render the employee a confidential employee.[16] If access to confidential labor relations information is to be a factor in the determination of an employees confidential status, such information must relate to the employers labor relations policies. Thus, an employee of a labor union, or of a management association, must have access to confidential labor information with respect to his employer, the union, or the association, to be regarded a confidential employee, and knowledge of labor relations information pertaining to the companies with which the union deals, or which the association represents, will not clause an employee to be excluded from the bargaining unit representing employees of the union or association.[17] Access to information which is regarded by the employer to be confidential from the business standpoint, such as financial information[18] or technical trade secrets, will not render an employee a confidential employee.[19]

Herein listed are the functions of supervisors 3 and higher:

1. To undertake decisions to discontinue/temporarily stop shift operations when situations require.

2. To effectively oversee the quality control function at the processing lines in the storage of chicken and other products.

3. To administer efficient system of evaluation of products in the outlets.

4. To be directly responsible for the recall, holding and rejection of direct manufacturing materials.

5. To recommend and initiate actions in the maintenance of sanitation and hygiene throughout the plant.[20]

It is evident that whatever confidential data the questioned employees may handle will have to relate to their functions. From the foregoing functions, it can be gleaned that the confidential information said employees have access to concern the employers internal business operations. As held in Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board,[21] an employee may not be excluded from appropriate bargaining unit merely because he has access to confidential information concerning employers internal business operations and which is not related to the field of labor relations.

It must be borne in mind that Section 3 of Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution mandates the State to guarantee to all workers the right to self-organization. Hence, confidential employees who may be excluded from bargaining unit must be strictly defined so as not to needlessly deprive many employees of their right bargain collectively through representatives of their choosing.[22]

In the case at bar, supervisors 3 and above may not be considered confidential employees merely because they handle confidential data as such must first be strictly classified as pertaining to labor relations for them to fall under said restrictions. The information they handle are properly classifiable as technical and internal business operations data which, to our mind, has no relevance to negotiations and settlement of grievances wherein the interests of a union and the management are invariably adversarial. Since the employees are not classifiable under the confidential type, this Court rules that they may appropriately form a bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining. Furthermore, even assuming that they are confidential employees, jurisprudence has established that there is no legal prohibition against confidential employees who are not performing managerial functions to form and join a union.[23]

In this connection, the issue of whether the employees of San Miguel Corporation Magnolia Poultry Products Plants of Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis constitute a single bargaining unit needs to be threshed out.

It is the contention of the petitioner union that the creation of three (3) separate bargaining units, one each for Cabuyao Otis and San Fernando as ruled by the respondent Undersecretary, is contrary to the one-company, one-union policy. It adds that Supervisors level 1 to 4 and exempt employees of the three plants have a similarity or a community of interests.

This Court finds the contention of the petitioner meritorious.

An appropriate bargaining unit may be defined as a group of employees of a given employer, comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees, which the collective interest of all the employees, consistent with equity to the employer, indicate to be best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the law.[24]

A unit to be appropriate must effect a grouping of employees who have substantial, mutual interests in wages, hours, working conditions and other subjects of collective bargaining.[25]

It is readily seen that the employees in the instant case have community or mutuality of interest, which is the standard in determining the proper constituency of a collective bargaining unit.[26] It is undisputed that they all belong to the Magnolia Poultry Division of San Miguel Corporation. This means that, although they belong to three different plants, they perform work of the same nature, receive the same wages and compensation, and most importantly, share a common stake in concerted activities.

In light of these considerations, the Solicitor General has opined that separate bargaining units in the three different plants of the division will fragmentize the employees of the said division, thus greatly diminishing their bargaining leverage. Any concerted activity held against the private respondent for a labor grievance in one bargaining unit will, in all probability, not create much impact on the operations of the private respondent. The two other plants still in operation can well step up their production and make up for the slack caused by the bargaining unit engaged in the concerted activity. This situation will clearly frustrate the provisions of the Labor Code and the Mandate of the Constitution.[27]

The fact that the three plants are located in three different places, namely, in Cabuyao, Laguna, in Otis, Pandacan, Metro Manila, and in San Fernando, Pampanga is immaterial. Geographical location can be completely disregarded if the communal or mutual interests of the employees are not sacrificed as demonstrated in UP v. Calleja-Ferrer where all non-academic rank and file employees of the University of the Philippines inDiliman, Quezon City, Padre Faura, Manila, Los Baos, Laguna and the Visayas were allowed to participate in a certification election. We rule that the distance among the three plants is not productive of insurmountable difficulties in the administration of union affairs. Neither are there regional differences that are likely to impede the operations of a single bargaining representative.

WHEREFORE, the assailed Order of March 11, 1993 is hereby SET ASIDE and the Order of the Med-Arbiter on December 19, 1990 is REINSTATED under which a certification election among the supervisors (level 1 to 4) and exempt employees of the San Miguel Corporation Magnolia Poultry Products Plants of Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis as one bargaining unit is ordered conducted.

SO ORDERED.

Today is Friday, December 19, 2014search

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTBaguio City

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 161933 April 22, 2008

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK EMPLOYEES UNION (SCBEU-NUBE), petitioner, vs.STANDARD CHARTERED BANK and ANNEMARIE DURBIN, in her capacity as Chief Executive Officer, Philippines, Standard Chartered Bank, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:

For resolution is an appeal by certiorari filed by petitioner under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision1 dated October 9, 2002 and Resolution2 dated January 26, 2004 issued by the Court of Appeals (CA), dismissing their petition and affirming the Secretary of Labor and Employment's Orders dated May 31, 2001 and August 30, 2001.

Petitioner and the Standard Chartered Bank (Bank) began negotiating for a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) in May 2000 as their 1998-2000 CBA already expired. Due to a deadlock in the negotiations, petitioner filed a Notice of Strike prompting the Secretary of Labor and Employment to assume jurisdiction over the labor dispute.

On May 31, 2001, Secretary Patricia A. Sto. Tomas of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) issued an Order with the following dispositive portion:

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Standard Chartered Bank and the Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union are directed to execute their collective bargaining agreement effective 01 April 2001 until 30 March 2003 incorporating therein the foregoing dispositions and the agreements they reached in the course of negotiations and conciliation. All other submitted issues that were not passed upon are dismissed.

The charge of unfair labor practice for bargaining in bad faith and the claim for damages relating thereto are hereby dismissed for lack of merit.

Finally, the charge of unfair labor practice for gross violation of the economic provisions of the CBA is hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED.3

Both petitioner and the Bank filed their respective motions for reconsideration, which were denied by the Secretary per Order dated August 30, 2001.4

Petitioner sought recourse with the CA via a petition for certiorari, and in the assailed Decision dated October 9, 20025 and Resolution dated January 26, 2004,6 the CA dismissed their petition and affirmed the Secretary's Orders.

Hence, herein petition based on the following grounds:

I.

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN DECIDING THAT THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR REVISING THE SCOPE OF EXCLUSIONS FROM THE APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT UNDER THE CBA.

II.

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN DECIDING THAT A ONE-MONTH OR LESS TEMPORARY OCCUPATION OF A POSITION (ACTING CAPACITY) DOES NOT MERIT ADJUSTMENT IN REMUNERATION.7

The resolution of this case has been overtaken by the execution of the parties' 2003-2005 CBA. While this would render the case moot and academic, nevertheless, the likelihood that the same issues will come up in the parties' future CBA negotiations is not far-fetched, thus compelling its resolution. Courts will decide a question otherwise moot if it is capable of repetition yet evading review.[8]

The CBA provisions in dispute are the exclusion of certain employees from the appropriate bargaining unit and the adjustment of remuneration for employees serving in an acting capacity for one month.

In their proposal, petitioner sought the exclusion of only the following employees from the appropriate bargaining unit all managers who are vested with the right to hire and fire employees, confidential employees, those with access to labor relations materials, Chief Cashiers, Assistant Cashiers, personnel of the Telex Department and one Human Resources (HR) staff.9

In the previous 1998-2000 CBA,10 the excluded employees are as follows:

A. All covenanted and assistant officers (now called National Officers)

B. One confidential secretary of each of the:

1. Chief Executive, Philippine Branches

2. Deputy Chief Executive/Head, Corporate Banking Group

3. Head, Finance

4. Head, Human Resources

5. Manager, Cebu

6. Manager, Iloilo

7. Covenanted Officers provided said positions shall be filled by new recruits.

C. The Chief Cashiers and Assistant Cashiers in Manila, Cebu and Iloilo, and in any other branch that the BANK may establish in the country.

D. Personnel of the Telex Department

E. All Security Guards

F. Probationary employees, without prejudice to Article 277 (c) of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. 6715, casuals or emergency employees; and

G. One (1) HR Staff11

The Secretary, however, maintained the previous exclusions because petitioner failed to show that the employees sought to be removed from the list qualify for exclusion.12

With regard to the remuneration of employees working in an acting capacity, it was petitioner's position that additional pay should be given to an employee who has been serving in a temporary/acting capacity for one week. The Secretary likewise rejected petitioner's proposal and instead, allowed additional pay for those who had been working in such capacity for one month. The Secretary agreed with the Bank's position that a restrictive provision would curtail management's prerogative, and at the same time, recognized that employees should not be made to work in an acting capacity for long periods of time without adequate compensation.

The Secretary's disposition of the issues raised by petitioner were affirmed by the CA.13 The Court sustains the CA.

Whether or not the employees sought to be excluded from the appropriate bargaining unit are confidential employees is a question of fact, which is not a proper issue in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.14 This holds more true in the present case in which petitioner failed to controvert with evidence the findings of the Secretary and the CA.

The disqualification of managerial and confidential employees from joining a bargaining unit for rank and file employees is already well-entrenched in jurisprudence. While Article 245 of the Labor Code limits the ineligibility to join, form and assist any labor organization to managerial employees, jurisprudence has extended this prohibition to confidential employees or those who by reason of their positions or nature of work are required to assist or act in a fiduciary manner to managerial employees and hence, are likewise privy to sensitive and highly confidential records.15

In this case, the question that needs to be answered is whether the Bank's Chief Cashiers and Assistant Cashiers, personnel of the Telex Department and HR staff are confidential employees, such that they should be excluded.

As regards the qualification of bank cashiers as confidential employees, National Association of Trade Unions (NATU) Republic Planters Bank Supervisors Chapter v. Torres16 declared that they are confidential employees having control, custody and/or access to confidential matters, e.g., the branch's cash position, statements of financial condition, vault combination, cash codes for telegraphic transfers, demand drafts and other negotiable instruments, pursuant to Sec. 1166.4 of the Central Bank Manual regarding joint custody, and therefore, disqualified from joining or assisting a union; or joining, assisting or forming any other labor organization.17

Golden Farms, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja18 meanwhile stated that "confidential employees such as accounting personnel, radio and telegraph operators who, having access to confidential information, may become the source of undue advantage. Said employee(s) may act as spy or spies of either party to a collective bargaining agreement."19

Finally, in Philips Industrial Development, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,20 the Court designated personnel staff, in which human resources staff may be qualified, as confidential employees because by the very nature of their functions, they assist and act in a confidential capacity to, or have access to confidential matters of, persons who exercise managerial functions in the field of labor relations.

Petitioner insists that the foregoing employees are not confidential employees; however, it failed to buttress its claim. Aside from its generalized arguments, and despite the Secretary's finding that there was no evidence to support it, petitioner still failed to substantiate its claim. Petitioner did not even bother to state the nature of the duties and functions of these employees, depriving the Court of any basis on which it may be concluded that they are indeed confidential employees. As aptly stated by the CA:

While We agree that petitioner's proposed revision is in accordance with the law, this does not necessarily mean that the list of exclusions enumerated in the 1998-2000 CBA is contrary to law. As found by public respondent, petitioner failed to show that the employees sought to be removed from the list of exclusions are actually rank and file employees who are not managerial or confidential in status and should, accordingly, be included in the appropriate bargaining unit.

Absent any proof that Chief Cashiers and Assistant Cashiers, personnel of the Telex department and one (1) HR Staff have mutuality of interest with the other rank and file employees, then they are rightfully excluded from the appropriate bargaining unit. x x x21(Emphasis supplied)

Petitioner cannot simply rely on jurisprudence without explaining how and why it should apply to this case. Allegations must be supported by evidence. In this case, there is barely any at all.

There is likewise no reason for the Court to disturb the conclusion of the Secretary and the CA that the additional remuneration should be given to employees placed in an acting capacity for one month. The CA correctly stated:

Likewise, We uphold the public respondent's Order that no employee should be temporarily placed in a position (acting capacity) for more than one month without the corresponding adjustment in the salary. Such order of the public respondent is not in violation of the "equal pay for equal work" principle, considering that after one (1) month, the employee performing the job in an acting capacity will be entitled to salary corresponding to such position.

x x x x

In arriving at its Order, the public respondent took all the relevant evidence into account and weighed both parties arguments extensively. Thus, public respondent concluded that a restrictive provision with respect to employees being placed in an acting capacity may curtail management's valid exercise of its prerogative. At the same time, it recognized that employees should not be made to perform work in an acting capacity for extended periods of time without being adequately compensated. x x x22

Thus, the Court reiterates the doctrine that:

[T]he office of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court requires that it shall raise only questions of law. The factual findings by quasi-judicial agencies, such as the Department of Labor and Employment, when supported by substantial evidence, are entitled to great respect in view of their expertise in their respective fields. Judicial review of labor cases does not go so far as to evaluate the sufficiency of evidence on which the labor official's findings rest. It is not our function to assess and evaluate all over again the evidence, testimonial and documentary, adduced by the parties to an appeal, particularly where the findings of both the trial court (here, the DOLE Secretary) and the appellate court on the matter coincide, as in this case at bar. The Rule limits that function of the Court to the review or revision of errors of law and not to a second analysis of the evidence. x x x Thus, absent any showing of whimsical or capricious exercise of judgment, and unless lack of any basis for the conclusions made by the appellate court be amply demonstrated, we may not disturb such factual findings.23

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Ynares-Santiago, Chairperson, Chico-Nazario, Nachura, Reyes, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1 Penned by Associate Justice Elvi John S. Asuncion, with Associate Justices Portia Alio-Hormachuelos and Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., concurring; rollo, pp. 27-31.

2 Id. at 25.

3 CA rollo, p. 42.

4 Id. at 17-23.

5 Id. at 243-246.

6 Id. at 268.

7 Rollo, p. 14.

8 Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, Inc. v. National Wages and Productivity Commission, G.R. No. 144322, February 6, 2007, 514 SCRA 346, 360.

9 CA rollo, p. 37.

10 Id. at 102.

11 Id. at 105.

12 Id. at 37.

13 Id. at 246.

14 Kabankalan Catholic College v. Kabankalan Catholic College Union-PACIWU-TUCP, G.R. No. 157320, June 28, 2005, 461 SCRA 481, 491.

15 Metrolab Industries, Inc. v. Roldan-Confesor, 324 Phil. 416 437-438 (1996).

16 G.R. No. 93468, December 29, 1994, 239 SCRA 546.

17 Id. at 559.

18 G.R. No. 78755, July 19, 1989, 175 SCRA 471.

19 Id. at 477.

20 G.R. No. 88957, June 25, 1992, 210 SCRA 339, 347-348.

21 Rollo, p. 29.

22 Id. at 29-30.

23 Telefunken Semiconductors Employees Union-FFW v. Court of Appeals, 401 Phil. 776, 791-792 (2000).

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation