National Sugar Refneries Corp v.
NLRC
Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of
the case cited. Xie xie
!.R. No. "#"$%" &arch '() "**+
N,-./N,L S0!,R R12.N1R.1S C/R3/R,-./N) petitioner) vs. N,-./N,L L,4/R
R1L,-./NS C/&&.SS./N and N4SR S031R5.S/R6 0N./N) 73,C.809 -0C3)
respondents.
2acts:
3etitioner National Sugar Refneries Corporation 7N,S0R12C/9) a corporation ;hich
is full< o;ned and controlled b< the !overnment) operates three 7+9 sugar refneries
located at 4u=idnon) .loilo and 4atangas. 3rivate respondent union represents the
former supervisors of the N,S0R12C/ 4atangas Sugar Refner<.
.n "*>>) petitioner implemented a ?ob 1valuation 7?19 3rogram a@ecting all
emplo<ees) from ran=AandAfle to department heads. 8e glean from the records that
for about ten <ears prior to the ?1 3rogram) the members of respondent union ;ere
treated in the same manner as ran=Aand fle emplo<ees. ,s such) the< used to be
paid overtime) rest da< and holida< pa< pursuant to the provisions of ,rticles >$) *+
and *( of the Labor Code as amended.
8ith the implementation of the ?1 3rogram) members of respondent union ;ere reA
classifed under levels SAB to SA> ;hich are considered managerial sta@ for purposes
of compensation and benefts.
.n &a< "**#) petitioner N,S0R12C/ recognized herein respondent union) ;hich ;as
organized pursuant to Republic ,ct N/. %$"B allo;ing supervisor< emplo<ees to
form their o;n unions) as the bargaining representative of all the supervisor<
emplo<ees at the N,S0R12C/ 4atangas Sugar Refner<.
.n ?une "**#) the members of herein respondent union fled a complainant ;ith the
executive labor arbiter for nonApa<ment of overtime) rest da< and holida< pa<
allegedl< in violation of ,rticle "## of the Labor Code.
.n "**") 1xecutive Labor ,rbiter 3ido directed N,S0R12C/ to pa< for the ;ages
complained of.
/n appeal) in a decision promulgated on ?ul< "**") respondent National Labor
Relations Commission 7NLRC9 aCrmed the decision of the labor arbiter on the
ground that the members of respondent union are not managerial emplo<ees) and)
therefore) the< are entitled to overtime) rest da< and holida< pa<. Respondent NLRC
declared that these supervisor< emplo<ees are merel< exercising recommendator<
po;ers subDect to the evaluation) revie; and fnal action b< their department heads.
.ssue:
8EN the Supervisors are considered &anagerial 1mplo<ees and should no longer
receive overtime) rest da< and holida< pa<.
Ruling:
6es
Ratio:
F,rt. >' Coverage. G -he provisions of this title shall appl< to emplo<ees in all
establishments and underta=ings ;hether for proft or not) but not to government
emplo<ees) managerial emplo<ees) feld personnel) members of the famil< of the
emplo<er ;ho are dependent on him for support) domestic helpers) persons in the
personal service of another) and ;or=ers ;ho are paid b< results as determined b<
the Secretar< of Labor in ,ppropriate regulations.
F,s used herein) Hmanagerial emplo<eesH refer to those ;hose primar< dut< consists
of the management of the establishment in ;hich the< are emplo<ed or of a
department or subdivision thereof) and to other oCcers or members of the
managerial sta@.F 71mphasis supplied.9
.t is the submission of petitioner that ;hile the members of respondent union) as
supervisors) ma< not be occup<ing managerial positions) the< are clearl< oCcers or
members of the managerial sta@ because the< meet all the conditions prescribed b<
la; and) hence) the< are not entitled to overtime) rest da<.
Iuintessentiall<) ;ith the promotion of the union members) the< are no longer
entitled to the benefts ;hich attach and pertain exclusivel< to their positions.
1ntitlement to the benefts provided for b< la; reJuires prior compliance ;ith the
conditions set forth therein. 8ith the promotion of the members of respondent
union) the< occupied positions ;hich no longer met the reJuirements imposed b<
la;. -heir assumption of these positions removed them from the coverage of the
la;) ergo) their exemption therefrom.
,s correctl< pointed out b< petitioner) if the union members reall< ;anted to
continue receiving the benefts ;hich attach to their former positions) there ;as
nothing to prevent them from refusing to accept their promotions and their
corresponding benefts. ,s the sa<ing goes b<) the< could not) as a simple matter of
la; and fairness) get the best of both ;orlds at the expense of N,S0R12C/.
3romotion of its emplo<ees is one of the Durisprudentiall<Arecognized exclusive
prerogatives of management) provided it is done in good faith. .n the case at bar)
private respondent union has miserabl< failed to convince this Court that the
petitioner acted implementing the ?1 3rogram. -here is no sho;ing that the ?1
3rogram ;as intended to circumvent the la; and deprive the members of
respondent union of the benefts the< used to receive.
