UNITED PEPSI COLA SUPERVISORY UNION (UPSU) V HON.

LAGUESMA and

PEPSI COLA PRODUCTS PHILIPPINES, INC.

FACTS:

Petitioner is a union of supervisory employees. On March 20, 1995, petitioner filed a petition for
certification election on behalf of the route managers at Pepsi Cola Products Phils. The med-arbiter
denied its petition. On appeal, it was denied by Secretary of Labor and Employment on the ground that
route managers are managerial employees and are ineligible for union membership under Art.245 of the
Labor Code. So, petitioner challenged the validity of the order of the Secretary of DOLE by filing this suit,
showing that the respondent committed grave abuse of discretion. In here, it stated that Art. 245,
wherein managerial employees are ineligible to form, assist or join unions are in conflict with Art. III, Sec.
8 of the Constitution, which provides that, ‘the right of the people in the public and private sector to
form unions shall not be abridged’.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the route managers are managerial employees.

LAW APPLICABLE:

Art. 212: (m) "managerial employee" is one who is vested with powers or prerogatives to lay
down and execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, discharge, assign
or discipline employees. Supervisory employees are those who, in the interest of the employer,
effectively recommend such managerial actions if the exercise of such authority is not merely routinary
or clerical in nature but requires the use of independent judgment. All employees not falling within any
of the above definitions are considered rank-and-file employees for purposes of this Book.

CASE HISTORY:

August 31, 1995 - Petitioner brought this suit challenging the validity of the order of Sec. of DOLE
as reiterated in the order dated September 22, 1995, of the Secretary of Labor and Employment.

RULING:

Ye s . T h e r o u t e m a n a g e r s a r e c o n s i d e r e d t o b e m a n a g e r i a l e m p l o y e e s .
T h e r e m u s t b e a c l e a r s h o w i n g o f t h e m a n a g e r i a l a tt r i b u t e s u n d e r A r t . 2 1 2 o f
t h e L a b o r C o d e t o q u a l i f y a s m a n a g e r i a l e m p l o y e e . D e s i g n a ti o n s o r ti t l e s o f
t h e s e p o s i ti o n s a r e n o t c o n t r o l l i n g . A t t h e v e r y l e a s t , t h e p r i n c i p l e o f fi n a l i t y
o f a d m i n i s t r a ti v e d e t e r m i n a ti o n c o m p e l s r e s p e c t f o r t h e fi n d i n g o f t h e S e c . o f
L a b o r t h a t r o u t e m a n a g e r s a r e m a n a g e r i a l e m p l o y e e s a s d e fi n e d b y l a w i n t h e
a b s e n c e o f a n y t h i n g t o s h o w t h a t s u c h d e t e r m i n a ti o n i s w i t h o u t s u b s t a n ti a l
e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t i t . T h e c o u r t n o w fi n d s t h a t t h e j o b e v a l u a ti o n m a d e b y
t h e S e c r e t a r y o f L a b o r i s i n d e e d s u p p o r t e d b y s u b s t a n ti a l e v i d e n c e . T h e n a t u r e
o f t h e j o b o f r o u t e m a n a g e r s i s p r e p a r e d b y t h e c o m p a n y, c a l l e d “ R o u t e
M a n a g e r P o s i ti o n D e s c r i p ti o n .”

OPINION:

I a g r e e w i t h t h e r u l i n g o f t h e C o u r t b e c a u s e t h e j o b d e s c r i p ti o n o f t h e
m a n a g e r i a l e m p l o y e e s f a l l w i t h i n t h e d e s c r i p ti o n o f A r t . 2 1 2 o f t h e L a b o r
Code.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE),Petitioner,
vs.
KAWASHIMA TEXTILE MFG., PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondent

FACTS:

KFWU filed with DOLE Regional Office No. IV, a Petition for Certification Election to be
conducted in the bargaining unit composed of 145 rank-and-file employees of respondent.
Respondent-company filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition on the ground that KFWU did not
acquire any legal personality because its membership of mixed rank-and-file and supervisory
employees violated Article 245 of the Labor Code, and its failure to submit its books of account
contravened the ruling of the Court in Progressive Development Corporation v. Secretary,
Department of Labor and Employment.

Med-Arbiter Bactin found KFWU’s legal personality defective and dismissed its petition for
certification election, because petitioner’s members are mixture of rank and file and
supervisory employees. Petitioner’s union, at this point in time, has not attained the status of a
legitimate labor organization. Petitioner should first exclude the supervisory employees from its
membership before it can attain the status of a legitimate labor organization.
Respondent filed with DOLE Regional Office No. IV a Petition for Cancellation of Charter/Union
Registration of KFWU, the final outcome of which, unfortunately, cannot be ascertained from
the records.

KFWU appealed to the DOLE which granted the appeal. It ordered the case be remanded to the
office of origin for the immediate conduct of certification election. However, CA reversed it. Its
MR is denied. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a mixed membership of rank-and-file and supervisory employees in a

union is a ground for the dismissal of a petition for certification election

LAW APPLICABLE:

R.A. No. 6715,32 amending Book V of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 442 (Labor Code)
C A S E H I S TO R Y :

January 24, 2000 - KFWU filed with DOLE Regional Office No. IV, a Petition for
Certification Election to be conducted in the bargaining unit composed of 145 rank-and-file
employees of respondent.

January 19, 2000 – Attached to its petition are a Certificate of Creation of Local/Chapter,
stating that it [KFWU] submitted to said office a Charter Certificate issued to it by the national
federation Phil. Transport & General Workers Organization (PTGWO), and a Report of Creation
of Local/Chapter.

May 17, 2000 - Med-Arbiter Bactin found KFWU’s legal personality defective and
dismissed its petition for certification election.

RULING:

The petition has merit. The key to the closure that petitioner seeks could have been
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9481 [AN ACT STRENGTHENING THE WORKERS’ CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
TO SELF-ORGANIZATION, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 442, AS
AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES]

However, R.A. No. 9481 took effect only on June 14, 2007; hence, it applies only to labor
representation cases filed on or after said date. As the petition for certification election subject
matter of the present petition was filed by KFWU on January 24, 2000, R.A. No. 9481 cannot
apply to it. There may have been curative labor legislations29 that were given retrospective
effect, but not the aforecited provisions of R.A. No. 9481, for otherwise, substantive rights and
interests already vested would be impaired in the process.

Instead, the law and rules in force at the time of the filing by KFWU of the petition for
certification election on January 24, 2000 are R.A. No. 6715, amending Book V of Presidential
Decree (P.D.) No. 442 (Labor Code), as amended, and the Rules and Regulations Implementing
R.A. No. 6715, as amended by Department Order No. 9, series of 1997.

One area of contention has been the composition of the membership of a labor organization,
specifically whether there is a mingling of supervisory and rank-and-file employees and how
such questioned mingling affects its legitimacy.

Effective 1989, R.A. No. 6715 restored the prohibition against the questioned mingling in one
labor organization, viz:

Sec. 18. Article 245 of the same Code, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as
follows
“Art. 245. Ineligibility of managerial employees to join any labor organization; right of
supervisory employees. 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.” (Emphasis supplied)

Unfortunately, just like R.A. No. 875, R.A. No. 6715 omitted specifying the exact effect any
violation of the prohibition would bring about on the legitimacy of a labor organization.

Thus, when the issue of the effect of mingling was brought to the fore in Toyota, the Court,
citing Article 245 of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. No. 6715, held:

Clearly, based on this provision, a labor organization composed of both rank-and-file and
supervisory employees is no labor organization at all. It cannot, for any guise or purpose, be a
legitimate labor organization. Not being one, an organization which carries a mixture of rank-
and-file and supervisory employees cannot possess any of the rights of a legitimate labor
organization, including the right to file a petition for certification election for the purpose of
collective bargaining. It becomes necessary, therefore, anterior to the granting of an order
allowing a certification election, to inquire into the composition of any labor organization
whenever the status of the labor organization is challenged on the basis of Article 245 of the
Labor Code xxxx

In the case at bar, as respondent union’s membership list contains the names of at least twenty-
seven (27) supervisory employees in Level Five positions, the union could not, prior to purging
itself of its supervisory employee members, attain the status of a legitimate labor organization.
Not being one, it cannot possess the requisite personality to file a petition for certification
election.

But then, on June 21, 1997, the 1989 Amended Omnibus Rules was further amended by
Department Order No. 9, series of 1997 (1997 Amended Omnibus Rules). Specifically, the
requirement under Sec. 2(c) of the 1989 Amended Omnibus Rules – that the petition for
certification election indicate that the bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees has not been
mingled with supervisory employees – was removed.

Consequently, the Court reverses the ruling of the CA and reinstates that of the DOLE granting
the petition for certification election of KFWU.

II. Now to the second issue of whether an employer like respondent may collaterally attack the
legitimacy of a labor organization by filing a motion to dismiss the latter’s petition for
certification election.
Except when it is requested to bargain collectively, an employer is a mere bystander to any
petition for certification election; such proceeding is non-adversarial and merely investigative,
for the purpose thereof is to determine which organization will represent the employees in their
collective bargaining with the employer. The choice of their representative is the exclusive
concern of the employees. The employer cannot have any partisan interest therein; it cannot
interfere with, much less oppose, the process by filing a motion to dismiss or an appeal from it,
not even a mere allegation that some employees participating in a petition for certification
election are actually managerial employees will lend an employer legal personality to block the
certification election. The employer’s only right in the proceeding is to be notified or informed
thereof.
The amendments to the Labor Code and its implementing rules have buttressed that policy
even more.

Petition is GRANTED.

OPINION:

I agree with the ruling of the Court because it is in consonance with the application of
the applicable laws stated therein.
THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA, acting through its owner, GRAND PLAZA
HOTEL CORPORATION vs.

NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN THE HOTEL, RESTAURANT AND ALLIED

INDUSTRIES-HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA SUPERVISORS CHAPTER
(NUWHRAIN-HHMSC)

FACTS:

Respondents filed a petition for certification of pre-election with the DOLE. The Med-
Arbiter approved the pre-election. However, the certification election was delayed,
but pushed through nonetheless. Petitioner filed for cancellation of the certification
due to the failure of respondent to submit its financial statements to the Bureau of
Labor Relations. The Med-Arbiter still ruled in favor of respondents. Petitioner
appealed the decision to the regional director of the DOLE. The Regional director
still rendered a decision in favor of respondents, which prompted petitioners to
appeal the decision to the director of the Bureau of Labor Relations. The director of
the BLR inhibited from the issue, as he was previously the counsel of respondents.
The Secretary of Labor resolved the issue in the stead of the BLR director. She ruled
in favor of respondents. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the
decision, but was turned down. Petitioner then filed for certiorari, challenging the
jurisdiction of the DOLE Secretary. An appeal from the decision of the Regional
Director is supposed to be under the jurisdiction of the BLR. Also, petitioner claims
to have been deprived of due process as it was not informed of the inhibition of the
BLR director.

ISSUES: Whether or not the ruling of the secretary of labor was valid

LAW APPLICABLE:

Articles 238 and 239 of the Labor Code read:

ART. 238. CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION; APPEAL
The certificate of registration of any legitimate labor organization,
whether national or local, shall be canceled by the Bureau if it has
reason to believe, after due hearing, that the said labor organization no
longer meets one or more of the requirements herein prescribed.

ART. 239. GROUNDS FOR CANCELLATION OF UNION

REGISTRATION.
The following shall constitute grounds for cancellation of union
registration:

xxxx
(d) Failure to submit the annual financial report to the Bureau within
thirty (30) days after the closing of every fiscal year and
misrepresentation, false entries or fraud in the preparation of the
financial report itself;

xxxx
(i) Failure to submit list of individual members to the Bureau once a year
or whenever required by the Bureau.

ART. 242-A. Reportorial Requirements.The following are documents

required to be submitted to the Bureau by the legitimate labor
organization concerned:

(a) Its constitution and by-laws, or amendments thereto, the minutes of

ratification, and the list of members who took part in the ratification of
the constitution and by-laws within thirty (30) days from adoption or
ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto;

(b) Its list of officers, minutes of the election of officers, and list of
voters within thirty (30) days from election;

(c) Its annual financial report within thirty (30) days after the
close of every fiscal year; and

(d) Its list of members at least once a year or whenever required by the
Bureau.

Failure to comply with the above requirements shall not be a ground

for cancellation of union registration but shall subject the erring
officers or members to suspension, expulsion from membership, or
any appropriate penalty.
CASE HISTORY:

October 11, 1995 - respondent filed with the Department of Labor and
Employment-National Capital Region (DOLE-NCR) a petition for certification
election.

February 14, 1996- Med-Arbiter granted the petition.

February 26, 1997 - On appeal, the DOLE Secretary, in a Resolution dated

August 15, 1996, affirmed the Med-Arbiters order and remanded the case to the
Med-Arbiter for the holding of a pre-election conference.

September 23, 1996 - Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was
denied.

RULING:

It is without question that the appeal from the decision of the regional office is
within the jurisdiction of the BLR. Given the circumstances, the BLR director
inhibited himself. Petitioner insists that the case should have gone to the
subordinates of the BLR director. However, this happens in cases where the director
is incapacitated. This does not obtain as the director merely inhibited himself. On the
other hand, the Secretary of DOLE has powers of supervision and control over the
BLR. As such, it may validly step into the shoes of the BLR director and resolve the
issue.

OPINION:

It is agreeable with the such ruling of the Honorable Court since the
Secretary of DOLE has powers of supervision and control over the BLR and it
may validly step into the shoes of the BLR director and resolve the issue.
TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS INTERNATIONAL GOLF CLUB INCORP. V

TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS EMPLOYEES UNION-PGTWO

FACTS: On October 16, 1997, the Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union (THEU)–
Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization (PTGWO) representing
majority of the rank-and-file employees of THIGCI, filed a petition for certification
election before the DOLE.
THIGCI, opposed THEU’s petition on the ground that the list of union members
submitted by it was defective and fatally flawed as it included the names and
signatures of supervisors, resigned, terminated and absent without leave (AWOL)
employees, as well as employees of The Country Club, Inc., a corporation distinct
and separate from THIGCI; and that out of the 192 signatories to the petition,
only 71 were actual rank-and-file employees of THIGCI.

THIGCI also alleged that some of the signatures in the list of union members
were secured through fraudulent and deceitful means, and submitted copies of
the handwritten denial and withdrawal of some of its employees from
participating in the petition. THEU asserted that it had complied with all the
requirements for valid affiliation and inclusion in the roster of legitimate labor
organizations pursuant to DOLE Department Order No. 9, series of 1997,on
account of which it was duly granted a Certification of Affiliation by DOLE on
October 10, 1997 and that Section 5, Rule V of said Department Order provides
that the legitimacy of its registration cannot be subject to collateral attack, and
for as long as there is no final order of cancellation, it continues to enjoy the
rights accorded to a legitimate organization.

ISSUE: W/N supervisory employees are prohibited from joining a labor union.

LAW APPLICABLE: Article 245. Ineligibility of managerial employees to join any

labor organization; right of supervisory employees. — 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.

CASE HISTORY:

October 16, 1997 - the Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union (THEU)–

Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization (PTGWO) representing
majority of the rank-and-file employees of THIGCI, filed a petition for certification
election before the DOLE.
 October 10, 1997- THEU asserted that it had complied with all the requirements for valid
affiliation and inclusion in the roster of legitimate labor organizations pursuant to DOLE
Department Order No. 9, series of 1997,[5] on account of which it was duly granted a
Certification of Affiliation by DOLE

RULING:

NO. The statutory authority for the exclusion of supervisory employees in a

rank-and-file union, and vice-versa, is Article 245 of the Labor Code. While above-
quoted Article 245 expressly prohibits supervisory employees from joining a
rank-and-file union, they were not prohibited from forming, assisting and joining
their own union.

As for the lack of mutuality of interest argument of petitioner, it, at all events,
does not lie given, as found by the court a quo, its failure to present substantial
evidence that the assailed employees are actually occupying supervisory
positions.
While petitioner submitted a list of its employees with their corresponding job
titles and ranks,24 there is nothing mentioned about the supervisors’ respective
duties, powers and prerogatives that would show that they can effectively
recommend managerial actions which require the use of independent judgment. 25
As this Court put it in Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor:26
Designation should be reconciled with the actual job description of subject
employees x x x The mere fact that an employee is designated manager does not
necessarily make him one. Otherwise, there would be an absurd situation where
one can be given the title just to be deprived of the right to be a member of a
union. In the case of National Steel Corporation vs. Laguesma (G. R. No. 103743,
January 29, 1996), it was stressed that:

What is essential is the nature of the employee’s function and not the
nomenclature or title given to the job which determines whether the employee
has rank-and-file or managerial status or whether he is a supervisory employee.

OPINION: I agree with the ruling of the Court inasmuch as the statutory authority
for the exclusion of supervisory employees in a rank-and-file union, and vice-
versa, is Article 245 of the Labor Code. They were not prohibited from forming,
assisting and joining their own union while above-quoted Article 245 expressly
prohibits supervisory employees from joining a rank-and-file union.
DUNLOP SLAZENGER V HON. SEC. OF LABOR

FACTS: Dunlop- Slazenger Staff Assoc. (DSSA) filed a petition for certification election before
DOLE Pampanga stating that it is a legitimate labor organization. It further alleged that the
Dunlop Slazenger Inc. (DSI) is an unorganized establishment, that there is no CBA barring the
certification election and that no certification election has been conducted within 1 yr. prior to
filing of the petition for certification election. DSI filed its Answer with Motion to Dismiss on the
grounds that: DSSI is a combination of supervisory and rand-and-file employees and cannot act
as bargaining agent for the proposed unit; that a single certification election cannot be
conducted jointly among supervisory and rank-and-file employees; and that the DSSA lacks legal
standing since it failed to submit its books of accounts. DSSA replied that its members are
supervisors and not rank-and-file; that all its members are paid monthly by DSI. Its bargaining
unit it wants to represent are monthly paid supervisory employees and not rank-and-file. It also
averred that the certification election cannot be used to question the legal personality of a labor
organization.

ISSUE: Whether or not the DSSA can file a Petition for Certification Election to represent the
supervisory employees of the DSI.

LAW APPLICABLE:

ART. 245. Ineligibility of managerial employees to join any labor organization;

right of supervisory employees-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.'
CASE HISTORY:

September 15, 1995 - the respondent union filed a Petition for Certification Election
among the supervisory, office and technical employees of the petitioner company before the
Department of Labor and Employment, Regional Office No. III, San Fernando, Pampanga.

October 9, 1995 -the petitioner company filed its Answer with Motion to Dismiss based
on three (3) grounds, namely: (1) that the respondent union is comprised of supervisory and
rank-and-file employees and cannot act as bargaining agent for the proposed unit; (2) that a
single certification election cannot be conducted jointly among supervisory and rank-and-file
employees; and (3) that the respondent union lacks legal standing since it failed to submit its
books of accounts.

July 15, 1996- Mediator Arbiter Ma. Carmen A. Espinosa granted the petition for
certification election.

RULING:

The petition is meritorious.

We agree with the public respondent that supervisors can be an appropriate bargaining
unit. This is in accord with our repeated ruling that "[a]n appropriate bargaining unit is a group of
employees of a given employer, composed of all or less than the entire body of employees,
which the collective interests of all the employees, consistent with equity to the employer,
indicate to be best suited to serve reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the collective
bargaining provisions of law. Otherwise stated, it is a legal collectivity for collective bargaining
purposes whose members have substantially mutual bargaining interests in terms and conditions
of employment as will assure to all employees their collective bargaining rights. 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."[7]
The critical issue, however, is whether or not the respondent union can file a petition for
certification election to represent the supervisory employees of the petitioner company. The
resolution of this issue depends on whether the respondent union is composed solely of
supervisory employees or of both supervisory and rank-and-file employees. Article 245 of the
Labor Code clearly provides that "supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in
a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees x x x."
To determine who are supervisory and rank-and-file employees reference has to be made to
Article 212 (m) of the Labor Code, as amended, as well as Section 1 (t), Rule I, Book V of the
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, as amended, viz:

'''Managerial employee is one who is vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down
and execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, layoff, recall,
discharge, assign or discipline employees. Supervisory employees are those who, in
the interest of the employer, effectively recommend such managerial actions if
the exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but
requires the use of independent judgment. All employees not falling within any of
the above definitions are considered rank-and-file employees for purposes of this
Book [these Rules].'"

Determining the status of supervisory and rank-and-file employees is not a hard row to hoe
in labor law. The test of supervisory status as we have repeatedly ruled is whether an employee
possesses authority to act in the interest of his employer, which authority should not be merely
routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of independent judgment. Corrollarily, what
determines the nature ofemployment is not the employee's title, but his job description.[8]
In the instant case, the list of monthly paid employees submitted by the petitioner company
contains the names of about twenty seven (27) supervisory employees, six (6) managerial
employees, one (1) confidential employee and twenty six (26) office and technical employees
holding various positions. The list reveals that the positions occupied by the twenty six (26)
office and technical employees are in fact rank-and-file positions, i.e., A/C mechanic,
draftsmen, storemen, motorpool mechanic, secretaries, accounts clerk, company nurses,
industrial mechanic, boiler men, laboratory technicians, payroll clerk, welder, purchasing
clerk, company drivers and electricians. It is fairly obvious that these positions cannot be
considered as supervisory positions for they do not carry the authority to act in the interest of the
employer or to recommend managerial actions. It is not decisive that these employees are
monthly paid employees. Their mode of compensation is usually a matter of convenience and
does not necessarily determine the nature and character of their job

OPINION:

This is agreeable at all costs. This shall be sustained.

SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA CHARTER CHEMICAL SOLIDARITY OF
UNIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES FOR EMPOWERMENT AND REFORMS [SMCC-
SUPER], ZACARRIAS JERRY VICTORIO - UNION PRESIDENT, Petitioner, v.
CHARTER CHEMICAL AND COATING CORPORATION, Respondent.

FACTS:

On February 19, 1999,Samahang Manggagawa sa Charter Chemical Solidarity of

Unions in the Philippines for Empowerment and Reforms (petitioner union) filed a
petition for certification election among the regular rank-and-file employees of
Charter Chemical and Coating Corporation (respondent company) with the
Mediation Arbitration Unit of the DOLE, National Capital Region. On April 14, 1999,
respondent company filed an Answer with Motion to Dismiss on the ground that
petitioner union is not a legitimate labor organization because of (1) failure to comply
with the documentation requirements set by law, and (2) the inclusion of supervisory
employees within petitioner union.

The Med-Arbiter agreed with the respondent company. Though the DOLE disagreed
with the Med-Arbiter on its findings regarding the documentation requirements and
the inclusion of supervisory employees in the union, it ruled that the petitioner union
did not file its petition on time. Another union, supposedly, had filed a petition for
certification election and its petition has been decided with finality. The CA upheld
the findings of the Med-Arbiter.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the mingling of supervisory employees with rank and file employees
nullifies the legal personality of the union
LAW APPLICABLE:
R.A. No. 6715 - omitted specifying the exact effect any violation of the prohibition [on the co-
mingling of supervisory and rank-and-file employees] would bring about on the legitimacy of a labor
organization.

Sec. 1. Who may join unions. - x x x Supervisory employees and security guards 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; Provided, that those supervisory
employees who are included in an existing rank-and-file bargaining unit, upon the effectivity of
Republic Act No. 6715, shall remain in that unit

CASE HISTORY:

February 19, 1999- Samahang Manggagawa sa Charter Chemical Solidarity

of Unions in the Philippines for Empowerment and Reforms (petitioner union) filed a
petition for certification election among the regular rank-and-file employees of
Charter Chemical and Coating Corporation (respondent company) with the
Mediation Arbitration Unit of the DOLE, National Capital Region.

April 14, 1999 -respondent company filed an Answer with Motion to Dismiss
on the ground that petitioner union is not a legitimate labor organization because of
(1) failure to comply with the documentation requirements set by law, and (2) the
inclusion of supervisory employees within petitioner union.
April 30, 1999, Med-Arbiter Tomas F. Falconitin issued a Decision 6 dismissing the petition for
certification election. The Med-Arbiter ruled that petitioner union is not a legitimate labor organization
because the Charter Certificate, "Sama-samang Pahayag ng Pagsapi at Authorization," and
"Listahan ng mga Dumalo sa Pangkalahatang Pulong at mga Sumang-ayon at Nagratipika sa
Saligang Batas" were not executed under oath and certified by the union secretary and attested to
by the union president as required by Section 235 of the Labor Code

RULING:

T h e p e t i t i o n i s m e r i t o r i o u s . The Court held that after a labor

organization has been registered, it may exercise all the rights and privileges of a
legitimate labor organization. Any mingling between supervisory and rank-and-file
employees in its membership cannot affect its legitimacy for that is not among the
grounds for cancellation of its registration, unless such mingling was brought about
by misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under Article 239 of the Labor Code.
As a result, petitioner union was not divested of its status as a legitimate labor
organization even if some of its members were supervisory employees; it had the
right to file the subject petition for certification election. In Tagaytay Highlands Int'l.
Golf Club, Inc. v. Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union-PGTWO in which the core
issue was whether mingling affects the legitimacy of a labor organization and its
right to file a petition for certification election, the Court, given the altered milieu,
abandoned the view in Toyota and Dunlop and reverted to its pronouncement in
Lopez that while there is a prohibition against the mingling of supervisory and rank-
and-file employees in one labor organization, the Labor Code does not provide for
the effects thereof.

OPINION:

I agree with the ruling of the Court at all Costs. So ordered.

PABLO ARIZALA, SERGIO MARIBAO, LEONARDO JOVEN, and FELINO

BULANDUS, petitioners,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS:It was under the regime of said Industrial Peace Act that the Government Service Insurance
System (GSIS, for short) became bound by a collective bargaining agreement executed between it
and the labor organization representing the majority of its employees, the GSIS Employees
Association. The agreement contained a "maintenance-of-membership" clause, 5 i.e., that all
employees who, at the time of the execution of said agreement, were members of the union or became
members thereafter, were obliged to maintain their union membership in good standing for the duration of
the agreement as a condition for their continued employment in the GSIS.

There appears to be no dispute that at that time, the petitioners occupied supervisory positions in the
GSIS. Pablo Arizala and Sergio Maribao were, respectively, the Chief of the Accounting Division, and
the Chief of the Billing Section of said Division, in the Central Visayas Regional Office of the GSIS.
Leonardo Joven and Felino Bulandus were, respectively, the Assistant Chief of the Accounting
Division (sometimes Acting Chief in the absence of the Chief) and the Assistant Chief of the Field
Service and Non-Life Insurance Division (and Acting Division Chief in the absence of the Chief), of
the same Central Visayas Regional Office of the GSIS. Demands were made on all four of them to
resign from the GSIS Employees Association, in view of their supervisory positions. They refused to
do so. Consequently, two (2) criminal cases for violation of the Industrial Peace Act were lodged
against them in the City Court of Cebu: one involving Arizala and Maribao 6 and the other, Joven and
Bulandus.

ISSUE: whether or not the petitioners' criminal liability for a violation of the Industrial Peace Act may
be deemed to have been obliterated in virtue of subsequent legislation and the provisions of the
1973 and 1987 Constitutions

LAW APPLICABLE:

The legal principles governing the rights of self-organization and collective bargaining of rank-and-
file employees in the government- particularly as regards supervisory, and high level or managerial
employees have undergone alterations through the years.
Republic Act No. 875

As already intimated, under RA 875 (the Industry Peace Act), 12 persons "employed in proprietary
functions of the Government, including but not limited to governmental corporations," had the right of self-
organization and collective bargaining, including the right to engage in concerted activities to attain their
objectives, e.g. strikes.

Supervisory employees were forbidden to join labor organizations composed of employees under
them, but could form their own unions. Considered "supervisors' were those 'having authority in the
interest of an employer to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign, recommend, or
discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them, and to adjust their grievance or effectively
to recommend such acts if, in connection with the foregoing, the exercise of such authority is not
merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of independent judgment." 13

RULING:

The reason for denying to government employees the right to "self-organization and to form,
join or assist labor organizations for purposes of collective bargaining" is presumably the same as
that under the Industrial Peace Act, i.e., that the terms and conditions of government employment
are fixed by law and not by collective bargaining.

Some inconsistency appears to have arisen between the Labor Code and the Civil Service Act of
1959. Under the Civil Service Act, persons "employed in proprietary functions of the government
including, but not limited to, governmental corporations'-not being within "the policy of the
Government that the employees therein shall not strike for the purpose of securing changes in their
terms and conditions of employment"-could legitimately bargain with their respective employers
through their labor organizations, and corollarily engage in strikes and other concerted activities in
an attempt to bring about changes in the conditions of their work. They could not however do so
under the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules and Regulations; these provided that "government
employees, including employees of government-owned and/or controlled corporations," without
distinction as to function, were "exempted" (excluded is the better term) from "the right to self-
organization and to form, join or assist labor organizations for purposes of collective bargaining," and
by implication, excluded as well from the right to engage in concerted activities, such as strikes, as
coercive measures against their employers.

Members of supervisory unions who were not managerial employees, were declared by the
Labor Code to be "eligible to join or assist the rank and file labor organization, and if none
exists, to form or assist in the forming of such rank and file organization ". Managerial
employees, on the other hand, were pronounced as 'not eligible to join, assist or form any labor
organization." A "managerial employee" was defined as one vested with power or prerogatives
to lay down and execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall,
discharge, assign or discipline employees, or to effectively recommend such managerial
actions."

OPINION: I agree with the ruling of the court since members of supervisory unions who were
not managerial employees, were declared by the Labor Code to be "eligible to join or assist the
rank and file labor organization, and if none exists, to form or assist in the forming of such rank
and file organization ".
 RIGHT TO SELF-
ORGANIZATION BY
SUPERVISORS
J o s e p h A n t h o ny C . B a t a u s a

University of the East

College of Law