M"nd"rin Hotel vs NLRC

GR. No. 76989. September 29, 1987

MANILA MANDARIN EMPLOYEES UNION v. NLRC "nd MELBA C. BELONCIO

G.R. No. 76989, 1987 Sep 29 
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.
 
FACTS: Priv"te respondent, Melb" C. Beloncio, "ssist"nt he"d w"itress "t the
hotel's coffee shop, w"s expelled from the M"nil" M"nd"rin Employees Union
for "cts "llegedly inimic"l to the interests of the union. The ch"rge of disloy"lty
"g"inst Beloncio "rose from her emotion"l rem"rk to " w"itress who h"ppened
to be " union stew"rd, "W"l" "kong tiw"l" s" Union ninyo." The rem"rk w"s
m"de in the course of " he"ted discussion reg"rding Beloncio's efforts to m"ke
" l"zy "nd rec"lcitr"nt w"iter "dopt " better "ttitude tow"rds his work.  The
union dem"nded the dismiss"l from employment of Beloncio on the b"sis of the
union security cl"use of their collective b"rg"ining "greement "nd the Hotel
"cceded by pl"cing Beloncio on forced le"ve. the L"bor Arbiter held th"t the
union w"s guilty of unf"ir l"bor pr"ctice when it dem"nded the sep"r"tion of
Beloncio "nd the employer w"s ordered to reinst"te her.
 
ISSUES: Is petitioner union is guilty of ULP by re"son of the "rbitr"ry use of the
union security cl"use in the CBA?
 
HELD: Yes. The Hotel would not h"ve compelled Beloncio to go on forced le"ve
were it not for the union's insistence "nd dem"nd to the extent th"t bec"use of
the f"ilure of the hotel to dismiss Beloncio "s requested, the union filed " notice
of strike with the Ministry of L"bor "nd Employment on the issue of unf"ir l"bor
pr"ctice. Although the CBA cont"ined " union security cl"use or closed-shop
"greement, it is, however, stressed th"t such "re "lso governed by l"w "nd by
principles of justice, f"ir pl"y, "nd leg"lity. Union security cl"uses c"nnot be
used by union offici"ls "g"inst "n employer, much less their own members,
except with " high sense of responsibility, f"irness, prudence, "nd
judiciousness.
 
A union member m"y not be expelled from her union, "nd consequently from
her job, for person"l or impetuous re"sons or for c"uses foreign to the closed-
shop "greement "nd in " m"nner ch"r"cterized by "rbitr"riness "nd
whimsic"lity. Beloncio w"s merely trying her best to m"ke " hotel bus boy do
his work promptly "nd courteously so "s to serve hotel customers in the coffee
shop expeditiously "nd cheerfully. Union membership does not entitle w"iters,
j"nitors, "nd other workers to be sloppy in their work, in"ttentive to customers,
"nd disrespectful to supervisors. The Union should h"ve disciplined its erring
"nd troublesome members inste"d of c"using so much h"rdship to " member
who w"s only doing her work for the best interests of the employer, "ll its
employees, "nd the gener"l public whom they serve.

G.R. No. 75037 April 30, 1987

TANDUAY DISTILLERY LABOR UNION, petitioner,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

Disloy"lty to the T"ndu"y Distillery L"bor Union (T.D.L.U.) by forming "nd joining
"nother union with " complete t"keover intent "s the sole "nd exclusive
b"rg"ining represent"tive of "ll r"nk "nd file employees "t TDI. (p. 16, Rollo)

expelled the priv"te respondents from TDLU for disloy"lty to the Union effective
J"nu"ry 16, 1981. By letter d"ted J"nu"ry 10, 1981, TDLU notified TDI th"t
priv"te respondents h"d been expelled from TDLU "nd dem"nded th"t TDI
termin"te the employment of priv"te, respondents bec"use they h"d lost their
membership with TDLU.
Consistent with the intent "nd spirit of P.D. 1391 "nd its implementing rules, the
contr"ct b"r rule should h"ve been "pplied in this c"se. The represent"tion
issue c"nnot be entert"ined except within the l"st sixty (60) d"ys of the
collective "greement.

ruling

An est"blished postul"te in l"bor rel"tions firmly rooted in this jurisdiction is

th"t the dismiss"l of "n employee pursu"nt to " dem"nd of the m"jority union in
"ccord"nce with " union security "greement following the loss of seniority
rights is v"lid "nd privileged "nd does not constitute "n unf"ir l"bor pr"ctice.

Article 249 (e) of the L"bor Code "s "mended specific"lly recognizes the
closed shop "rr"ngement "s " form of union security. The closed shop, the
union shop, the m"inten"nce of membership shop, the preferenti"l shop, the
m"inten"nce of tre"sury shop, "nd check-off provisions "re v"lid forms of
union security "nd strength. They do not constitute unf"ir l"bor pr"ctice nor "re
they viol"tions of the freedom of "ssoci"tion cl"use of the Constitution.

VictoriGs Milling Co., Inc., v. VictoriGs-MGnGpiG Workers OrgGnizGtion

(9 SCRA 154),

ruled:
Another re"son for enforcing the closed-shop "greement is the principle of
s"nctity or inviol"bility of contr"cts gu"r"nteed by the Constitution. As " m"tter
of principle the provision of the Industri"l Pe"ce Act rel"ting freedom to
employees to org"nize themselves "nd set their represent"tive for entering into
b"rg"ining "greements, should be subordin"te to the constitution"l provision
protecting the s"nctity of contr"cts.

[T]he "ction of the respondent comp"ny in enforcing the terms of the closed-
shop "greement is " v"lid exercise of its rights "nd oblig"tions under the
contr"ct. The dismiss"l by virtue thereof c"nnot constitute "n unf"ir l"bor
pr"ctice, "s it w"s in pursu"nce of "n "greement th"t h"s been found to be
regul"r "nd of " closed-shop "greement which under our l"ws is v"lid "nd
binding.

H"ving r"tified th"t CBA "nd being then members of the TDLU, the priv"te
respondents owe fe"lty "nd "re required under the Union Security Cl"use to
m"int"in their membership in good st"nding with it during the term thereof, "
requirement which ce"ses to be binding only during the 60-d"y freedom period
immedi"tely preceding the expir"tion of the CBA.

Presidenti"l Decree No. 1391, promulg"ted M"y 29, 1978, the l"w "pplic"ble in
this inst"nce provides: No petition for certific"tion election for intervention
dis"ffili"tion sh"ll be entert"ined or given due course except within the 60 d"y
freedom period immedi"tely preceding the execution of the Collective
B"rg"ining Agreement.

And "s "n "ct of loy"lty " union m"y cert"inly require its members not to
"ffili"te with "ny other l"bor union "nd to consider its infringement "s "
re"son"ble c"use for sep"r"tion. This is wh"t w"s done by respondent union.
And the respondent employer did nothing but to put in force their "greement
when it sep"r"ted the herein compl"in"nts upon the recommend"tion of s"id
union.

But the f"ct th"t the CBA h"d expired on June 30, 1982 "nd the BLR, bec"use
of such supervening event, ordered the holding of " certific"tion election could
not "nd did not wipe out or cle"nse priv"te respondents from the "cts of
disloy"lty committed in October 1980 when they org"nized KAMPIL's loc"l
ch"pter in TDI while still members of TDLU. The ineluct"ble f"ct is th"t priv"te
respondents committed "cts of disloy"lty "g"inst TDLU while the CBA w"s in
force "nd existing for which they h"ve to f"ce the necess"ry s"nctions l"wfully
imposed by TDLU.

ILAC Employees Union vs InsulGr Life

union busting,
The letters should be interpreted "ccording to the "tot"lity of conduct
doctrine," 
"x x x whereby the culp"bility of "n employer's rem"rks were to be ev"lu"ted
not only on the b"sis of their implicit implic"tions, but were to be "ppr"ised
"g"inst the b"ckground of "nd in conjunction with coll"ter"l circumst"nces.
Under this"'doctrine' expressions of opinion by "n employer which, though
innocent in themselves, frequently were held to be culp"ble bec"use of the
circumst"nces under which they were uttered, the history of the p"rticul"r
employer's l"bor rel"tions or "nti-union bi"s or bec"use of their connection with
"n est"blished coll"ter"l pl"n of coercion or interference." (Rothenberg on
L"bor Rel"tions, p. 374, "nd c"ses cited therein)

moncGdG bijon fGctory vs cir

stGtutes of limitGtions

Sec. 15 (g). In determining when "n "ction is commenced under this section for
the purposes of the st"tute limit"tions, it sh"ll be considered to be commenced
in the c"se of "ny individu"l cl"im"nt on the d"te when the compl"int is filed if
he is specific"lly n"med "s p"rty pl"intiff in the compl"int, or if his n"me did not
so "ppe"r, on the subsequent d"te on which his n"me is "dded "s " p"rty
pl"intiff in such "ction.
Sec. 17. St"tute of Limit"tion. — Any "ction commenced on or "fter the
effective d"te of this Act to enforce "ny c"use of "ction under this Act m"y be
commenced within three ye"rs "fter the c"use of "ction "ccrued, "nd every
such "ction sh"ll be forever b"rred unless commenced within three ye"rs "fter
the c"use of "ction "ccrued.

bGseco vs nlrc- retrenchment vGlid selection members of nGflu

first in lGst out FILO/LGst in First Out LIFO

It le"ds Us to conclude th"t the firm h"d been discrimin"ting "g"inst

membership in the NAFLU, "n "ct which "mounts to interference in the
employeesʼ exercise of their right of self-org"niz"tion. Under Article 249 of the
L"bor Code of the Philippines, such interference is considered "n "ct of unf"ir
l"bor pr"ctice on the p"rt of the Comp"ny, to wit —

"ART. 249. Unf"ir l"bor pr"ctices of employers. — It sh"ll be unl"wful for "n
employer to commit "ny of the following unf"ir l"bor
pr"ctices:jgc:ch"nrobles.com.ph

"(") To interfere with, restr"in or coerce employees in the exercise of their right
to self-org"niz"tion.;

H. Aronson Inc. vs. ALU - Piercing the Veil of CorporGte Fiction

Illeg"l Closure "nd Constrcutive Dismiss"l of Union Members through Closing of

Business "nd opening "nother while ret"ining none union members.
Indeed, the f"cts est"blished by the evidence le"d to no other conclusion th"n
th"t the two new corpor"tions "ctu"lly took over the business of Aronson. To
these circumst"nces so bl"t"ntly reve"ling petitioners' purpose must be "dded
these "ddition"l circumst"nces: th"t the new corpor"tions st"rted business "
d"y "fter the closure of business of Aronson; th"t the members of the Aronson
f"mily who controlled s"id comp"ny "re in the s"me controlling position in the
two new corpor"tions; "nd l"stly, th"t Aronson's employees who were not
members of the respondent Union l"ter found immedi"te employment with the
new corpor"tions.

COMPLEX ELECTRONICS CORP vs. NLRC, COMPLEX ELECTRONICS

EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (CEEA), represented by Union President,
TALAVERA
G.R. No. 122136 July 19, 1999

A “run"w"y shop” is defined "s "n industri"l pl"nt moved by its owners from
one loc"tion to "nother to esc"pe union l"bor regul"tions or st"te l"ws, but the
term is "lso used to describe " pl"nt removed to " new loc"tion in order to
discrimin"te "g"inst employees "t the old pl"nt bec"use of their union
"ctivities. It is one wherein the employer moves its business to "nother loc"tion
or it tempor"rily closes its business for "nti-union purposes. A “run"w"y shop”
in this sense, is " reloc"tion motiv"ted by "nti-union "nimus r"ther th"n for
business re"sons.
In this c"se, however, Ionics w"s not set up merely for the purpose of
tr"nsferring the business of Complex.  At the time the l"bor dispute "rose "t
Complex, Ionics w"s "lre"dy existing "s "n independent comp"ny.  As e"rlier
mentioned, it h"s been in existence since July 5, 1984 (8 ye"rs prior to the
dispute).  It c"nnot, therefore, be s"id th"t the tempor"ry closure in Complex
"nd its subsequent tr"nsfer of business to Ionics w"s for "nti-union
purposes.  The Union f"iled to show th"t the prim"ry re"son for the closure of
the est"blishment w"s due to the union "ctivities of the employees.

The mere f"ct th"t one or more corpor"tions "re owned or controlled by the
s"me or single stockholder is not " sufficient ground for disreg"rding sep"r"te
corpor"te person"lities.  Mere ownership by " single stockholder or by "nother
corpor"tion of "ll or ne"rly "ll of the c"pit"l stock of " corpor"tion is not of itself
sufficient ground for disreg"rding the sep"r"te corpor"te person"lity.

.  The determin"tion to ce"se oper"tion is " prerog"tive of m"n"gement th"t is

usu"lly not interfered with by the St"te "s no employer c"n be required to
continue oper"ting "t " loss simply to m"int"in the workers in
employment.  Th"t would be t"king of property without due process of l"w
which the employer h"s the right to resist.

SGn Miguel Brewery SGles Force Union(PTGWO) vs. Hon. BlGs Ople G.R.
No. L-53515, FebruGry 8, 1989
FACTS:
For 3 ye"rs, " collective b"rg"ining "greement w"s being implemented by S"n 
Miguel Corpor"tion S"les Force Union (PTGWO), "nd S"n Miguel Corpor"tion. S
ection 1, of Article IV of which provided “Employees within the "ppropri"te b"rg
"ining unit sh"ll be entitled to " b"sic monthly compens"tion plus commission b
"sed on their respective s"les.” Then, the comp"ny introduced " m"rketing sch
eme known "s “Complement"ry Distribution System”(CDS) whereby its beer pr
oducts were offered for s"le directly to wholes"lers through S"n Miguelʼs S"les 
Offices. The union "lleged th"t the new m"rketing scheme viol"tes Sec 1, Art IV 
f the CBA bec"use the introduction of the CDS would reduce the t"ke home p"y
 of the s"lesmen.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the new m"rketing scheme should be upheld considering th"t th
e "ct w"s unil"ter"lly m"de by the employer.
 
RULING:
Yes, bec"use it is " v"lid exercise of m"n"geri"l prerog"tive. So long "s " comp
"nyʼs m"n"gement prerog"tives "re exercised in good f"ith for the "dv"ncemen
t of the employerʼs interest "nd not for the purpose of defe"ting or circumventin
g the rights of the employees under speci"l l"ws or under v"lid "greements, this
 Court will uphold them. S"n Miguel Corpor"tionʼs offer to compens"te the mem
bers of its s"les force who will be "dversely "ffected by the implement"tion of t
he CDS by p"ying them " so-
c"lled “b"ck "djustment commission” to m"ke up for the commissions they mig
ht lose "s " result of the CDS proves the comp"nyʼs good f"ith "nd l"ck of inten
tion to bust their union.

dGbuet et Gl vs roche phGrmG (1987)

FACTS:

The petitioners, "ll officers of the Roche Products

L"bor Union, wrote the respondent comp"ny
expressing their griev"nces "nd seeking form"l
conference with m"n"gement reg"rding the previous
dismiss"l of the unionʼs president "nd vice-president.

At the meeting, inste"d of discussing the

problems "ffecting the l"bor union "nd m"n"gement,
the comp"nyʼs gener"l m"n"ger "llegedly ber"ted
the petitioners for writing the s"id letter "nd c"lled
the letter "nd the person who prep"red it “stupid.” 

Feeling th"t he w"s the one "lluded to, since he

h"d prep"red the letter, the counsel for the l"bor
union filed " c"se for “Gr"ve Sl"nder” "g"inst the
gener"l m"n"ger. The ch"rge w"s b"sed on the
"ffid"vit executed by the petitioners.

In turn, the comp"ny "nd the m"n"ger filed "

compl"int for “Perjury” "g"inst petitioners "lleging
th"t their "ffid"vit cont"ined f"lse st"tements

The comp"ny construed the execution by

petitioners of the "ffid"vit "s "n “"ct of bre"ch of 
trust "nd confidence.” Hence, they were suspended
"nd l"ter on dismissed.

Issue:
Whether respondent comp"ny, in termin"ting the
employment of the petitioners without just "nd l"wful 
c"use, committed "n unf"ir l"bor pr"ctice.

Held: YES. Petition Gr"nted

Respondent comp"ny h"d committed unf"ir l"bor
pr"ctice in dismissing the petitioners without just "nd
v"lid c"use. Their dismiss"l, under the circumst"nces,
"mounted to interference with, "nd restr"int or coercion
of, the petitioners in the exercise of their right to eng"ge
in concerted "ctivities for their mutu"l "id "nd protection
Bre"ch of trust "nd confidence, the grounds "lleged for
petitioners' dismiss"l, "must not be indiscrimin"tely used
"s " shield to dismiss "n employee "rbitr"rily

CLLC E.G. GOCHANGCO WORKERS UNION v. NLRC, GR Nos. 67158,

1988-05-30

In "ny event, we h"ve held th"t unf"ir l"bor pr"ctice c"ses "re not, in view of
the public interest involved, subject to compromises. Furthermore, these
"lleged w"ivers do not "ppe"r to h"ve been presented in the first inst"nce.
They c"nnot be introduced for the first time on "ppe"l.

Before B"t"s Blg. 70 w"s en"cted into l"w, unf"ir l"bor pr"ctices were
considered "dministr"tive offenses, "nd h"ve been held "kin to tort, wherein
d"m"ges "re p"y"ble. We therefore not only order herein the reinst"tement of
the petitioners "nd the p"yment of b"ckw"ges (including cost-of-living
"llow"nces) to them, but impose "s well mor"l "nd exempl"ry d"m"ges. With
respect to b"ckw"ges, we hold the respondent e.g. Goch"ngco, Inc. li"ble, in
line with the recommend"tion of the Solicitor Gener"l "nd in "ccord"nce with
"ccepted pr"ctice, for b"ckw"ges equiv"lent to three (3) ye"rs without
qu"lific"tion or deduction.
As for mor"l d"m"ges, we hold the s"id respondent li"ble therefor under the
provisions of Article 2220 of the Civil Code providing for d"m"ges for "bre"ches
of contr"ct where the defend"nt "cted fr"udulently or in b"d f"ith." We deem
just "nd proper the sum of P5,000.00 e"ch in f"vor of the termin"ted workers,
in the concept of such d"m"ges.
We likewise gr"nt unto s"id workers "nother P5,000.00 e"ch to "nswer for
exempl"ry d"m"ges b"sed on the provisions of Articles 2229 "nd 2231 "nd/or
2232 of the Civil Code. For ""ct[ing] in gross "nd evident b"d f"ith in refusing to
s"tisfy the [petitioners'] pl"inly v"lid, just "nd dem"nd"ble cl"im[s] " the
respondent firm is further condemned to p"y "ttorney's fees. The Court
considers the tot"l sum of P20,000.00 f"ir "nd re"son"ble.

StGndGrd chGrtered bGnk employees v. Sec. of LGbor Gnd Employment,

Gnd the StGndGrd ChGrtered BGnk

F"cts

St"nd"rd ch"rtered b"nk is " foreign b"nking corpor"tion doing business in the
Philippines. St"nd"rd ch"rtered.St"nd"rd ch"rtered b"nk employees union is
the exclusive b"rg"ining "gent of the r"nk "nd file employees.The b"nk "nd the
Union signed " 5 ye"r collective b"rg"ining "greement with " provision covering
renegoti"tion of the terms on the 3rd ye"r.Prior to the expir"tion of the 3rd ye"r
period but within the 60d"y period,the Union initi"ted the negoti"tions.Before
the commencement of the negoti"tion,the Union through Divin"gr"ci"
suggested to the B"nks Hum"n resources m"n"ger "nd he"d of the negoti"ting
p"nel th"t the b"nk l"wyers should be excluded from the negoti"ting
te"m.Me"nwhile, the he"d of the negoti"ting p"nel suggested to Divin"gr"ci"
th"t the President of the N"tion"l Union of B"nk employees be excluded from
the Unions negoti"ting p"nel.However,he w"s ret"ined "s " member
thereof.During thenegoti"tion the he"d of the negoti"ting p"nel suggested th"t
the negoti"tion be kept " f"miliy f"ir.The proposed non economic provisions of
the CBA discussed even during the fin"l re"ding,there were still provisions on
which the Union "nd
the b"nk could noit "gree.Tempor"rily, the negoti"tion "deferred" w"s pl"ced
therein.But tow"rds the end of the meeting,the Union m"nifested th"t the s"me
should be ch"nged to "de"dlock" to indic"te th"t such items rem"ined
unresolved.Both p"rties "greed to pl"ce the not"tion "deferred/de"dlock".When
the negoti"tion for economic provisions commenced the president of the NUBE
requested the B"nk to v"lid"te the unions "questim"tes" especi"lly the figures
for the r"nk "nd file st"ff.And he revoked the b"nk for the insufficiency of its
counter-propos"l on the provisions on s"l"ry incre"se,group
hospit"liz"tion,de"th "ssist"nce "nd dent"l bebefits.Upon the b"nk
insistence,the p"rties "greed to t"ckle the economic p"ck"ge item by
item.Upon dis"greement the union decl"red " de"dlock "nd filed " notice of
strike before the n"tion"l concili"tion "nd medi"tion bo"rd NCMB.On the
otherh"nd,the B"nk filed " compl"int for ULP "nd d"m"ges before the
NLRC.The b"nk "llege th"t the union viol"ted its duty to b"rg"in,"s it did not
b"rg"in in good f"ith.It contended th"t the dem"nded "sky high economic
dem"nds" indic"tive of "blue sky b"rg"ining".Further, the union viol"ted its no
strike-no lockout cl"use by filing " notice of strike before the NCMB.The
secret"ry of l"bor "nd employment ordered th"t NUBE to execute " collective
b"rg"ining "greement incorpor"ting the dispositions cont"ined herein.The
b"nks ch"rge for ULP is dismissed for l"ck of merit.The SOLE dismissed the
ch"rges of ULP of both Union "nd the expl"ining th"t both p"rties f"iled to
subst"nti"te their cl"ims.St"ted th"t ULP ch"rges would prosp[er only if shown
to h"ve directly prejudiced the public interest.

ISSUE

1. Whether or not the Union w"s "ble to subst"nti"te its cl"im of ULP "g"inst
the b"nk "rising from the l"tters "lleged "interference" with its choice of
negoti"tor,surf"ce b"rg"ining,m"king b"d f"ith non-economic propos"ls,"nd
refus"l to furnish the Union with copies of the relev"nt d"t".
2.Whether or not the public respondent "cted with gr"ve "buse of discretion
"mounting to l"ck of excess of juridiction when she issued the "ss"iled order
"nd resolutions.
3.Whether or not the petitioner is estopped from filing the inst"nt "ction.
COURTS RULING

The petition is bereft of merit.

''Interference" under "rt.248(") of the l"bor code.The court held th"t in order to
show th"t the employer committed ULP under the l"bor code,subst"nti"l
evidence is required to support "s conclusion.In the c"se "t b"r,the Union
b"ses its cl"im of interference on the "lleged suggestions of Diokno to exclude
Um"li from the Unions negoti"ting p"nel.
"Duty to b"rg"in collectively".The suggestions m"de by Diokno to Divin"gr"ci"
should be construed "s p"rt of the norm"l rel"tions "nd innocent
communic"tions,which "re "ll p"rt of the friendly rel"tions between the Union
"nd B"nk.
"NO gr"ve "buse of discretion".While it is true th"t " showing of prejudice to
public interest is not " requisite for ULP ch"rges to prosper,it c"nnot be s"id
th"t the public respondent "cted in c"pricious "nd whimsic"l exercise of
judgment,equiv"lent to l"ck of jurisdiction or excess thereof.Neither w"s it
shown the public respondent exercised its power in "n "rbitr"ry "nd despotic
m"nner by re"son of p"ssion or person"l hostility.
"Estoppel not Applic"ble".In the c"se,the "pprov"l of the CBA "nd the rele"se
of signing bonus do not necess"rily me"n th"t the Union w"ived its ULP cl"im
"g"inst the b"nk during the p"st negoti"tions.After"ll,the conclusion of the CBA
w"s included in the order of the SOLE,while the signing bonus w"s included in
the CBA itself.
''Union did not eng"ge in the blue sky b"rg"ining?"The Union is guilty olf ULP
for eng"ging the blue-sky b"rg"ining or m"king ex"gger"ted or unre"sonble
propos"ls.The b"nk f"iled to show th"t the economic dem"nds m"de by the
Union were ex"ger"ted or unre"son"ble.The minutes of the meeting show th"t
the Union b"sed its economic propos"ls on d"t" of r"nk "nd file employees "nd
the prev"iling economic benefits in the Philippines.
Petition dismissed.

METROLAB INDUSTRIES, INC., v. ROLDAN-CONFESOR G.R. No.

108855 / 254 SCRA 182

Topic: Confidenti"l Employees

FACTS:
Priv"te respondent Metro Drug Corpor"tion Employees Associ"tion-Feder"tion
of Free Workers (herein"fter referred to "s the Union) is " l"bor org"niz"tion
representing the r"nk "nd file employees of petitioner Metrol"b Industries, Inc.
(herein"fter referred to "s Metrol"b/MII) "nd "lso of Metro Drug, Inc.

The Collective B"rg"ining Agreement (CBA) between Metrol"b "nd the Union
expired. The negoti"tions for " new CBA, however, ended in " de"dlock.

The Union filed " notice of strike "g"inst Metrol"b "nd Metro Drug Inc. 

The p"rties f"iled to settle their dispute despite the concili"tion efforts of the
N"tion"l Concili"tion "nd Medi"tion Bo"rd.

SECRETARY OF LABOR Ruben D. Torres: issued "n "ssumption order of

jurisdiction over the entire l"bor dispute "t Metro Drug, Inc. - Metro Drug
Distribution Division "nd Metrol"b Industries Inc.

SECRETARY OF LABOR: issued "n order resolving "ll the disputed items in the
CBA "nd ordered the p"rties involved to execute " new CBA.

The Union filed " Motion for Reconsider"tion (MR).

During the pendency of the MR, Metrol"b l"id off 94 of its r"nk "nd file
employees.

The Union filed " motion for " ce"se "nd desist order to enjoin Metrol"b from
implementing the m"ss l"yoff, "lleging th"t such "ct viol"ted the prohibition
"g"inst committing "cts th"t would ex"cerb"te the dispute "s specific"lly
directed in the "ssumption order.

Metrol"b contended th"t the l"yoff w"s tempor"ry "nd in the exercise of its
m"n"gement prerog"tive.

There"fter, on v"rious d"tes, Metrol"b rec"lled some of the l"id off workers on
" tempor"ry b"sis due to "v"il"bility of work in the production lines.

ACTING SEC. OF LABOR Nieves Confesor: " resolution decl"ring the l"yoff of
Metrol"bs 94 r"nk "nd file workers illeg"l "nd ordered their reinst"tement with
full b"ckw"ges.
After exh"ustive negoti"tions, the p"rties entered into " new CBA. The
execution, however, w"s without prejudice to the outcome of the issues r"ised
in the reconsider"tion "nd cl"rific"tion motions submitted for decision to the
Secret"ry of L"bor.

The Union filed " motion for execution. Metrol"b opposed. 

Hence, the present petition for certior"ri with "pplic"tion for issu"nce of "
Tempor"ry Restr"ining Order.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not public respondent L"bor Secret"ry committed gr"ve "buse of
discretion "nd exceeded her jurisdiction in decl"ring the subject l"yoffs
instituted by Metrol"b illeg"l on grounds th"t these unil"ter"l "ctions
"ggr"v"ted the conflict between Metrol"b "nd the Union who were, then,
locked in " st"lem"te in CBA negoti"tions.
2. Whether or not the Public Respondent Secret"ry of DOLE gr"vely "bused her
discretion in including executive secret"ries "s p"rt of the b"rg"ining unit of the
r"nk "nd file employees

RULING:
1.     NO, bec"use the Secret"ry of L"bor is expressly given the power under the
L"bor Code to "ssume jurisdiction "nd resolve l"bor disputes involving
industries indispens"ble to n"tion"l interest. The disputed injunction is
subsumed under this speci"l gr"nt of "uthority.

 Art. 263 (g) of the L"bor Code specific"lly provides th"t:

xxx xxx xxx
(g) When, in his opinion, there exists " l"bor dispute c"using or likely to c"use "
strike or lockout in "n industry indispens"ble to the n"tion"l interest, the
Secret"ry of L"bor "nd Employment m"y "ssume jurisdiction over the dispute
"nd decide it or certify the s"me to the Commission for compulsory "rbitr"tion.
Such "ssumption or certific"tion sh"ll h"ve the effect of "utom"tic"lly enjoining
the intended or impending strike or lockout "s specified in the "ssumption or
certific"tion order. If one h"s "lre"dy t"ken pl"ce "t the time of "ssumption or
certific"tion, "ll striking or locked out employees sh"ll immedi"tely return to
work "nd the employer sh"ll immedi"tely resume oper"tions "nd re"dmit "ll
workers under the s"me terms "nd conditions prev"iling before the strike or
lockout. The Secret"ry of L"bor "nd Employment or the Commission m"y seek
the "ssist"nce of l"w enforcement "gencies to ensure compli"nce with this
provision "s well "s with such orders "s he m"y issue to enforce the s"me.
2. NO, bec"use Article I (b) of the 1988-1990 CBA provides:
b)Close Shop. - All Qu"lified Employees must join the Associ"tion immedi"tely
upon regul"riz"tion "s " condition for continued employment. This provision
sh"ll not "pply to: (i) m"n"geri"l employees who "re excluded from the scope
of the b"rg"ining unit; (ii) the "uditors "nd executive secret"ries of senior
executive officers, such "s, the President, Executive Vice-President, Vice-
President for Fin"nce, He"d of Leg"l, Vice-President for S"les, who
"re excluded from membership in the Associ"tion; "nd (iii) those employees
who "re referred to in Att"chment I hereof, subject, however, to the "pplic"tion
of the provision of Article II, p"r. (b) hereof. Consequently, the "bove-specified
employees "re not required to join the Associ"tion "s " condition for their
continued employment.
On the other h"nd, Att"chment I provides:
Exclusion from the Scope of the Close Shop Provision
The following positions in the B"rg"ining Unit "re not covered by the Close
Shop provision of the CBA (Article I, p"r. b):
1. Executive Secret"ries of Vice-Presidents, or equiv"lent positions.
2. Executive Secret"ry of the Personnel M"n"ger, or equiv"lent positions.
3. Executive Secret"ry of the Director for Corpor"te Pl"nning, or equiv"lent
positions.
4. Some personnel in the Personnel Dep"rtment, EDP St"ff "t He"d Office,
P"yroll St"ff "t He"d Office, Accounting Dep"rtment "t He"d Office, "nd
Budget St"ff, who bec"use of the n"ture of their duties "nd responsibilities
need not join the Associ"tion "s " condition for their employment.
5. Newly-hired secret"ries of Br"nch M"n"gers "nd Region"l M"n"gers.
Both Metro Drug "nd Metrol"b re"d the exclusion of m"n"geri"l employees "nd
executive secret"ries "s exclusion from the b"rg"ining unit. They point out th"t
m"n"geri"l employees "re lumped under one cl"ssific"tion with executive
secret"ries, so th"t since the former "re excluded from the b"rg"ining unit, so
must the l"tter be likewise excluded.
The exclusion of m"n"geri"l employees, in "ccord"nce with l"w, must therefore
still c"rry the qu"lifying phr"se from the b"rg"ining unit in Article I (b)(i) of the
1988-1990 CBA. In the s"me m"nner, the exclusion of executive secret"ries
should be re"d together with the qu"lifying phr"se "re excluded from
membership in the Associ"tion of the s"me Article "nd with the he"ding of
Att"chment I. The l"tter refers to Exclusions from Scope of Close Shop Provision
"nd provides th"t [t]he following positions in B"rg"ining Unit "re not covered by
the close shop provision of the CBA.
The b"sis for the questioned exclusions, it should be noted, is no other th"n the
previous CBA between Metrol"b "nd the Union. If Metrol"b h"d undergone "n
org"niz"tion"l restructuring since then, this is " f"ct to which we h"ve never
been m"de privy. In "ny event, h"d this been otherwise the result would h"ve
been the s"me. To repe"t, we limited the exclusions to recognize the exp"nded
scope of the right to self-org"niz"tion "s embodied in the Constitution.
The Court concurs with Metrol"b contention th"t executive secret"ries of the
Gener"l M"n"ger "nd the executive secret"ries of the Qu"lity Assur"nce
M"n"ger, Product Development M"n"ger, Fin"nce Director, M"n"gement
System M"n"ger, Hum"n Resources M"n"ger, M"rketing Director, Engineering
M"n"ger, M"teri"ls M"n"ger "nd Production M"n"ger, who "re "ll members of
the comp"nyʼs M"n"gement Committee should not only be exempted from the
closed-shop provision but should be excluded from membership in the
b"rg"ining unit of the r"nk "nd file employees "s well on grounds th"t their
executive secret"ries "re confidenti"l employees, h"ving "ccess to vit"l l"bor
inform"tion.
Confidenti"l employees c"nnot be cl"ssified "s r"nk "nd file.  The n"ture of
employment of confidenti"l employees is quite distinct from the r"nk "nd file,
thus, w"rr"nting " sep"r"te c"tegory. Excluding confidenti"l employees from
the r"nk "nd file b"rg"ining unit, therefore, is not t"nt"mount to discrimin"tion.

DISPOSITIVE: Metrol"b Industries Inc. p"rti"lly won. The executive secret"ries

of petitioner Metrol"bs Gener"l M"n"ger "nd the executive secret"ries of the
members of its M"n"gement Committee "re excluded from the b"rg"ining unit
of petitioners r"nk "nd file employees.

DOCTRINE: Although Article 245 of the L"bor Code limits the ineligibility to join,
form "nd "ssist "ny l"bor org"niz"tion to m"n"geri"l employees, jurisprudence
h"s extended this prohibition to confidenti"l employees or those who by re"son
of their positions or n"ture of work "re required to "ssist or "ct in " fiduci"ry
m"nner to m"n"geri"l employees "nd hence, "re likewise privy to sensitive "nd
highly confidenti"l records.

 
Philips IndustriGl Development, Inc. vs NLRC
F"cts:
- PIDI is " domestic corpor"tion eng"ged in the m"nuf"cturing "nd m"rketing
of electronic products. Since 1971, it h"d " tot"l of 6 collective b"rg"ining
"greements with priv"te respondent Philips Employees Org"niz"tion-FFW
(PEO-FFW), " registered l"bor union "nd the certified b"rg"ining "gent of "ll
r"nk "nd file employees of PIDI.
- In the first CBA, the supervisors (referred to in RA 875), confidenti"l
employees, security gu"rds, tempor"ry employees "nd s"les represent"tives
were excluded in the b"rg"ining unit. In the second to the fifth, the s"les force,
confidenti"l employees "nd he"ds of sm"ll units, together with the m"n"geri"l
employees, tempor"ry employees "nd security personnel were excluded from
the b"rg"ining unit. The
confidenti"l employees "re the division secret"ries of light/telecom/d"t" "nd
consumer electronics, m"rketing m"n"gers, secret"ries of the corpor"te
pl"nning "nd business m"n"ger, fisc"l "nd fin"nci"l system m"n"ger "nd "udit
"nd EDP m"n"ger, "nd the st"ff of both the Gener"l M"n"gement "nd the
Personnel Dep"rtment.
- In the sixth CBA, it w"s "greed th"t the subject of inclusion or exclusion of
service engineers, s"les personnel "nd confidenti"l employees in the cover"ge
of the b"rg"ining unit would be submitted for  "rbitr"tion. The p"rties f"iled to
"gree on " volunt"ry "rbitr"tor "nd the Bure"u of L"bor Rel"tions endorsed the
petition to the Executive L"bor Arbiter of the NCR for compulsory "rbitr"tion.
- M"rch 1998, L"bor Arbiter: A referendum will be conducted to determine the
will of the service engineers "nd s"les represent"tives "s to their inclusion or
exclusion in the b"rg"ining unit. It w"s "lso decl"red th"t the Division
Secret"ries "nd "ll st"ff of gener"l m"n"gement, personnel "nd industri"l
rel"tions dep"rtment, secret"ries of "udit, EDP, fin"nci"l system "re
confidenti"l employees "re deemed excluded in the b"rg"ining unit.
- PEO-FFW "ppe"led to the NLRC; NLRC decl"red PIDI's Service Engineers,
S"les Force, division secret"ries, "ll St"ff of Gener"l M"n"gement, Personnel
"nd Industri"l Rel"tions Dep"rtment, Secret"ries of Audit, EDP "nd Fin"nci"l
Systems "re included within the r"nk "nd file b"rg"ining unit, citing the
Implementing Rules of E.O 111 "nd Article 245 of the L"bor Code ("ll workers,
except m"n"geri"l employees "nd security personnel, "re qu"lified to join or be
" p"rt of the b"rg"ining unit)

Issue:
-Whether service engineers, s"les represent"tives "nd confidenti"l employees
of petitioner "re qu"lified to be p"rt of the existing b"rg"ining unit
- Whether the "Globe Doctrine" should be "pplied

Held:
 NLRC decision is set "side while the decision of the Executive L"bor Arbiter is
reinst"ted. Confidenti"l employees "re excluded from the b"rg"ining unit while
" referendum will be conducted to determine the will of the service engineers
"nd s"les represent"tives "s to their inclusion or exclusion from the b"rg"ining
unit, but those who "re holding supervisory positions or functions "re ineligible
to join " l"bor 
org"niz"tion of the r"nk "nd file employees but m"y join, "ssist or form "
sep"r"te l"bor org"niz"tion of their own.

The "bsence of mutu"lity of interests between this group of employees "nd the
regul"r r"nk "nd file milit"tes "g"inst such inclusion. A t"ble prep"red by the
petitioner shows the disp"rity of interests between the s"id groups:

"nd following the Globe Doctrine enunci"ted in In Re: Globe M"chine "nd
St"mping Comp"ny to the effect th"t in determining the proper b"rg"ining unit
the express will or desire of the employees sh"ll be considered, they should be
"llowed to determine for themselves wh"t union to join or form. The best w"y to
determine their preference is through " referendum. Besides, this doctrine
"pplies only in inst"nces of evenly b"l"nced cl"ims by competitive groups for
the right to be est"blished "s the b"rg"ining unit,

R"tio:
The exclusion of confidenti"l employees:
The r"tion"le behind the ineligibility of m"n"geri"l employees to form, "ssist or
join " l"bor  union equ"lly "pplies to confidenti"l employees. With the presence
of m"n"geri"l employees in " union, the union c"n become comp"ny-
domin"ted "s their loy"lty c"nnot be "ssured. In Golden F"rms vs C"llej", the
Court st"tes th"t confidenti"l employees, who h"ve "ccess to confidenti"l
inform"tion, m"y become
the source of undue "dv"nt"ge

G.R. No. 122226 MGrch 25, 1998

UNITED PEPSI-COLA SUPERVISORY UNION (UPSU), petitioner,
vs.
HON. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA Gnd PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS,
PHILIPPINES, INC. respondents.
FACTS: Petitioner is " union of supervisory employees. It "ppe"rs th"t on M"rch
20, 1995 the union filed " petition for certific"tion election on beh"lf of the route
m"n"gers "t Pepsi-Col" Products Philippines, Inc. However, its petition w"s
denied by the med-"rbiter "nd, on "ppe"l, by the Secret"ry of L"bor "nd
Employment, on the ground th"t the route m"n"gers "re m"n"geri"l employees
"nd, therefore, ineligible for union membership under the first sentence of Art.
245 of the L"bor Code, which provides:
Ineligibility of m"n"geri"l employees to join "ny l"bor org"niz"tion; right of
supervisory employees. — M"n"geri"l employees "re not eligible to join, "ssist
or form "ny l"bor org"niz"tion. Supervisory employees sh"ll not be eligible for
membership in " l"bor org"niz"tion of the r"nk-"nd-file employees but m"y
join, "ssist or form sep"r"te l"bor org"niz"tions of their own.
Petitioner brought this suit ch"llenging the v"lidity of the order, dismissed.
Hence, this petition. Pressing for resolution its contention th"t the first sentence
of Art. 245 of the L"bor Code, so f"r "s it decl"res m"n"geri"l employees to be
ineligible to form, "ssist or join unions, contr"venes Art. III, §8 of the
Constitution which provides:
The right of the people, including those employed in the public "nd priv"te
sectors, to form unions, "ssoci"tions, or societies for purposes not contr"ry to
l"w sh"ll not be "bridged.
ISSUES:
(1) whether the route m"n"gers "t Pepsi-Col" Products Philippines, Inc. "re
m"n"geri"l employees "nd
(2) whether Art. 245, insof"r "s it prohibits m"n"geri"l employees from forming,
joining or "ssisting l"bor unions, viol"tes Art. III, §8 of the Constitution.
HELD: YES "nd NO
As " cl"ss, m"n"gers constitute three levels of " pyr"mid: (1) Top m"n"gement;
(2) Middle M"n"gement; "nd (3) First-line M"n"gement ["lso c"lled
supervisors].
FIRST-LINE MANAGERS — The lowest level in "n org"niz"tion "t which
individu"ls "re responsible for the work of others is c"lled first-line or first-level
m"n"gement. First-line m"n"gers direct oper"ting employees only; they do not
supervise other m"n"gers. Ex"mples of first-line m"n"gers "re the “forem"n”
or production supervisor in " m"nuf"cturing pl"nt, the technic"l supervisor in "
rese"rch dep"rtment, "nd the cleric"l supervisor in " l"rge office. First-level
m"n"gers "re often c"lled supervisors.
MIDDLE MANAGERS — The term middle m"n"gement c"n refer to more th"n
one level in "n org"niz"tion. Middle m"n"gers direct the "ctivities of other
m"n"gers "nd sometimes "lso those of oper"ting employees. Middle
m"n"gersʼ princip"l responsibilities "re to direct the "ctivities th"t implement
their org"niz"tionsʼ policies "nd to b"l"nce the dem"nds of their superiors with
the c"p"cities of their subordin"tes. A pl"nt m"n"ger in "n electronics firm is
"n ex"mple of " middle m"n"ger.
TOP MANAGERS — Composed of " comp"r"tively sm"ll group of executives,
top m"n"gement is responsible for the over"ll m"n"gement of the org"niz"tion.
It est"blishes oper"ting policies "nd guides the org"niz"tionʼs inter"ctions with
its environment. Typic"l titles of top m"n"gers "re “chief executive officer,”
“president,” "nd “senior vice-president.” Actu"l titles v"ry from one
org"niz"tion to "nother "nd "re not "lw"ys " reli"ble guide to membership in
the highest m"n"gement cl"ssific"tion.
A distinction exists between those who h"ve the "uthority to devise, implement
"nd control str"tegic "nd oper"tion"l policies (top "nd middle m"n"gers) "nd
those whose t"sk is simply to ensure th"t such policies "re c"rried out by the
r"nk-"nd-file employees of "n org"niz"tion (first-level m"n"gers/supervisors).
Wh"t distinguishes them from the r"nk-"nd-file employees is th"t they "ct in
the interest of the employer in supervising such r"nk-"nd-file employees.
“M"n"geri"l employees” m"y therefore be s"id to f"ll into two distinct
c"tegories: the “m"n"gers” per se, who compose the former group described
"bove, "nd the “supervisors” who form the l"tter group.
#1: It "ppe"rs th"t this question w"s the subject of two previous determin"tions
by the Secret"ry of L"bor "nd Employment, in "ccord"nce with which this c"se
w"s decided by the med-"rbiter.
To qu"lify "s m"n"geri"l employee, there must be " cle"r showing of the
exercise of m"n"geri"l "ttributes under p"r"gr"ph (m), Article 212 of the L"bor
Code "s "mended. Design"tions or titles of positions "re not controlling. As to
the route m"n"gers "nd "ccounting m"n"ger, we "re convinced th"t they "re
m"n"geri"l employees. Their job descriptions cle"rly reve"l so (Workerʼs
Alli"nce Tr"de Union (WATU) v. Pepsi-Col" Products Philippines, Inc., Nov. 13,
1991)
This finding w"s reiter"ted in C"se No. OS-A-3-71-92. entitled In Re: Petition for
Direct Certific"tion "nd/or Certific"tion Election-Route M"n"gers/Supervisory
Employees of Pepsi-Col" Products Phils.Inc.
* doctrine of res judic"t" cert"inly "pplies to "dvers"ry "dministr"tive
proceedings
Thus, we h"ve in this c"se "n expertʼs view th"t the employees concerned "re
m"n"geri"l employees within the purview of Art. 212.
At the very le"st, the principle of fin"lity of "dministr"tive determin"tion
compels respect for the finding of the Secret"ry of L"bor th"t route m"n"gers
"re m"n"geri"l employees "s defined by l"w in the "bsence of "nything to
show th"t such determin"tion is without subst"nti"l evidence to support it.
The Court now finds th"t the job ev"lu"tion m"de by the Secret"ry of L"bor is
indeed supported by subst"nti"l evidence. The n"ture of the job of route
m"n"gers is given in " four-p"ge p"mphlet, prep"red by the comp"ny, c"lled
“Route M"n"ger Position Description,” the pertinent p"rts of which re"d:
A. BASIC PURPOSE
A M"n"ger "chieves objectives through others.
As " Route M"n"ger, your purpose is to meet the s"les pl"n; "nd you "chieve
this objective through the skillful MANAGEMENT OF YOUR JOB AND THE
MANAGEMENT OF YOUR PEOPLE.
These then "re your functions "s Pepsi-Col" Route M"n"ger. Within these
functions — m"n"ging your job "nd m"n"ging your people — you "re
"ccount"ble to your District M"n"ger for the execution "nd completion of
v"rious t"sks "nd "ctivities which will m"ke it possible for you to "chieve your
s"les objectives.
Xxxx
Distinction is evident in the work of the route m"n"gers which sets them "p"rt
from supervisors in gener"l. Unlike supervisors who b"sic"lly merely direct
oper"ting employees in line with set t"sks "ssigned to them, route m"n"gers
"re responsible for the success of the comp"nyʼs m"in line of business through
m"n"gement of their respective s"les te"ms. Such m"n"gement necess"rily
involves the pl"nning, direction, oper"tion "nd ev"lu"tion of their individu"l
te"ms "nd "re"s which the work of supervisors does not ent"il.
The route m"n"gers c"nnot thus possibly be cl"ssified "s mere supervisors
bec"use their work does not only involve, but goes f"r beyond, the simple
direction or supervision of oper"ting employees to "ccomplish objectives set by
those "bove them.
While route m"n"gers do not "ppe"r to h"ve the power to hire "nd fire people
(the evidence shows th"t they only “recommended” or “endorsed” the t"king of
disciplin"ry "ction "g"inst cert"in employees), this is bec"use thisis " function
of the Hum"n Resources or Personnel Dep"rtment of the comp"ny.
# 2: Constitution"lity of Art. 245
Art.245 is the result of the "mendment of the L"bor Code in 1989 by R.A. No.
6715, otherwise known "s the Herrer"-Veloso L"w. Unlike the Industri"l Pe"ce
Act or the provisions of the L"bor Code which it superseded, R.A. No. 6715
provides sep"r"te definitions of the terms “m"n"geri"l” "nd “supervisory
employees,” "s follows:
Art. 212. Definitions. . . .
(m) “m"n"geri"l employee” is one who is vested with powers or prerog"tives to
l"y down "nd execute m"n"gement policies "nd/or to hire tr"nsfer, suspend,
l"y off, rec"ll, disch"rge, "ssign or discipline employees. Supervisory employees
"re those who, in the interest of the employer, effectively recommend such
m"n"geri"l "ctions if the exercise of such "uthority is not merely routin"ry or
cleric"l in n"ture but requires the use of independent judgment. All employees
not f"lling within "ny of the "bove definitions "re considered r"nk-"nd-file
employees for purposes of this Book.
The distinction between top "nd middle m"n"gers, who set m"n"gement policy,
"nd front-line supervisors, who "re merely responsible for ensuring th"t such
policies "re c"rried out by the r"nk "nd file, is "rticul"ted in the present
definition. 30 When re"d in rel"tion to this definition in Art. 212(m), it will be
seen th"t Art. 245 f"ithfully c"rries out the intent of the Constitution"l
Commission in fr"ming Art. III, §8 of the fund"ment"l l"w.
*Fr"merʼs Intent: MR. LERUM. My "mendment is on Section 7, p"ge 2, line 19,
which is to insert between the words “people” "nd “to” the following: WHETHER
EMPLOYED BY THE STATE OR PRIVATE ESTABLISHMENTS. In other words, the
section will now re"d "s follows: “The right of the people WHETHER EMPLOYED
BY THE STATE OR PRIVATE ESTABLISHMENTS to form "ssoci"tions, unions, or
societies for purposes not contr"ry to l"w sh"ll not be "bridged.”
Nor is the gu"r"ntee of org"niz"tion"l right in Art. III, §8 infringed by " b"n
"g"inst m"n"geri"l employees forming " union. The right gu"r"nteed in Art. III,
§8 is subject to the condition th"t its exercise should be for purposes “not
contr"ry to l"w.” In the c"se of Art. 245, there is " r"tion"l b"sis for prohibiting
m"n"geri"l employees from forming or joining l"bor org"niz"tions.
PETITION is DISMISSED.

GR No. L-28927, Sep 25, 1968 ]

LAGUNA COLLEGE v. CIR +
DECISION
The purpose w"s "to determine whether the L"gun" College Te"chers
Associ"tion (LACTA) or "ny other l"bor org"niz"tion is the true "nd volunt"ry
choice of the m"jority of the te"chers working in petitioner's est"blishment the
sole "nd exclusive b"rg"ining represent"tive."
LACTA intervened "nd filed "n "nswer on November 18, 1967, pr"ying th"t the
petition for, certific"tion election be dismissed "nd th"t it be directly certified "s
sole "nd exclusive b"rg"ining represent"tive of "ll the te"chers, excluding
"those occupying supervisory "nd confidenti"l positions ("s) defined "nd
settled by jurisprudence."
Petitioner there"fter elev"ted the c"se to the court en b"nc on motion for
reconsider"tion insof"r "s the decision (1) "uthorized the inclusion of eight
te"chers "s r"nk "nd file employees "nd therefore decl"red them eligible to
vote in the certific"tion election "nd (2) "uthorized (LACTA only one (LACTA)
inste"d of two b"rg"ining units to be voted upon.  LACTA interposed its
opposition to the motion. 

Petitioner cl"ims th"t these eight "re supervisors "nd therefore should not been
considered "s eligible to vote in the election of "ppropri"te b"rg"ining unit.
The title is not controlling but the job description whether or not "n employee is
" m"n"geri"l employee/supervisor or r"nk "nd file.

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION SUPERVISORS AND EXEMPT UNION V.

HON. LAGUESMA
[August 15, 1997]
ROMERO, J.

Doctrine/subject: Confidenti"l Employees "nd their eligibility to join " union.

FACTS:
Petitioner union filed before the DOLE " Petition for Direct Certific"tion or
Certific"tion Election "mong the supervisors "nd exempt employees of the SMC
M"gnoli" Poultry Products Pl"nts of C"buy"o, S"n Fern"ndo "nd Otis. The
med-
"rbiter gr"nted it m"de the three pl"nts "s one b"rg"ining unit. SMC, however,
"ppe"led to the order of the "rbiter st"ting th"t the grouping m"de by the l"tter
of the three pl"nts into one b"rg"ining unit is erroneous. USec. L"guesm"
gr"nted the "ppe"l "nd rem"nded b"ck the c"se to the "rbiter for proper
determin"tion of the true cl"ssific"tion of e"ch of the employees sought to be
included in the "ppropri"te b"rg"ining unit.

Respondent L"guesm" then directed the conduct of sep"r"te certific"tion

elections "mong the supervisors r"nked "s supervisory levels 1 to 4 (S1 to S4)
"nd the exempt employees in e"ch of the three pl"nts. Priv"te respondent SMC
filed " motion for reconsider"tion "nd motion to suspend the he"rings.
Respondent eventu"lly gr"nted it citing Philips Industri"l Development, Inc. v.
NLRC c"se. S"id Order re"ds in p"rt: ". . . Confidenti"l employees, like
m"n"geri"l employees, "re not "llowed to form, join or "ssist " l"bor union for
purposes of collective b"rg"ining.” In this c"se, S3 "nd S4 Supervisors "nd the
so-c"lled exempt employees "re "dmittedly confidenti"l employees "nd
therefore, they "re not "llowed to form, join or "ssist " l"bor union.

ISSUE:
1. Whether Supervisory employees 3 "nd 4 "nd the exempt employees of the
comp"ny "re considered confidenti"l employees, hence ineligible from joining "
union.
2. If they "re not confidenti"l employees, do the employees of the three pl"nts
constitute "n "ppropri"te single b"rg"ining unit.

RULING:
1. No, s"id employees do not f"ll within the term "confidenti"l employees" who
m"y be prohibited from joining " union. They "re not vested with the powers
"nd prerog"tives to l"y down "nd execute m"n"gement policies "nd/or to hire,
tr"nsfer, suspend, l"yoff, rec"ll, disch"rge or dismiss employees. Therefore,
they "re not qu"lified to be cl"ssified "s m"n"geri"l employees under Article
245 (4) of the L"bor Code. Confidenti"l employees "re those who (1) "ssist or
"ct in " confidenti"l c"p"city, (2) to persons who formul"te, determine, "nd
effectu"te m"n"gement policies in the field of l"bor rel"tions. Respondent SMC
contends th"t S3 "nd S4 employees "re confidenti"l employees bec"use they
h"ndle confidenti"l d"t" "nd/or documents such "s rel"ting to product
formul"tion, product st"nd"rds "nd product
specific"tion which by no me"ns rel"te to "l"bor rel"tions." However, such is
merely incident"l to his duties "nd knowledge thereof is not necess"ry in the
perform"nce of such duties. It is evident th"t wh"tever confidenti"l d"t" the
questioned employees m"y h"ndle will h"ve to rel"te to their functions. From
the foregoing functions, it c"n be gle"ned th"t the confidenti"l inform"tion s"id
employees h"ve "ccess to concern the employerʼs intern"l business oper"tions.

2.Yes, the employees constitute "n "ppropri"te single b"rg"ining unit.

An "ppropri"te b"rg"ining unit m"y be defined "s "" group of employees of "
given employer, comprised of "ll or less th"n "ll of the entire body of
employees, which the collective interest of "ll the employees, consistent with
equity to the employer, indic"te to be best suited to serve the reciproc"l rights
"nd duties of the p"rties under the collective b"rg"ining provisions of the l"w."
A unit to be "ppropri"te must effect " grouping of employees who h"ve
subst"nti"l, mutu"l interests in w"ges, hours, working conditions "nd other
subjects of collective b"rg"ining. It is re"dily seen th"t the employees in the
inst"nt c"se h"ve "community or mutu"lity of interests," which is the st"nd"rd
in determining the proper constituency of " collective b"rg"ining unit. It is
undisputed th"t they "ll belong to the M"gnoli" Poultry Division of S"n Miguel
Corpor"tion. This me"ns th"t, "lthough they belong to three different pl"nts,
they perform work of the s"me n"ture, receive the s"me w"ges "nd
compens"tion, "nd most import"ntly, sh"re " common st"ke in concerted
"ctivities.