Today is Tuesday, March 03, 2020
Custom Search
Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources AUSL Exclusive
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 101730 June 17, 1993
PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs.
HON. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA and PT & T SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES UNION-APSOTEU,
respondents.
Leonard U. Sawal for private respondent.
BELLOSILLO, J.:
Can a petition for certification election filed by supervisory employees of an unorganized
establishment — one without a certified bargaining agent — be dismissed on the ground that these
employees are actually performing managerial functions?
This is the issue for reconsideration in this petition for certiorari and mandamus, with prayer for the
issuance of a temporary restraining order, of
the Resolution of 11 June 19911 of then Acting Secretary of Labor and Employment Nieves D.
Confesor dismissing the appeal from the Order of 11 December 19902 of the Med-Arbiter which
granted the petition for certification election, and of the Order of 15 August 19913 denying
reconsideration.
On 22 October 1990, private respondent PT&T Supervisory Employees Union-APSOTEU (UNION,
for brevity) filed a petition before the Industrial Relations Decision of the Department of Labor and
Employment praying for the holding of a certification election among the supervisory employees of
petitioner Philippine Telegraph & Telephone Corporation (PT&T, for brevity). On 29 October 1990,
UNION amended its petition to include the allegation that PT&T was an unorganized establishment
employing roughly 100 supervisory employees from whose ranks will constitute the bargaining unit
sought to be established.
On 22 November 1990, PT&T moved to dismiss the petition for certification election on the ground
that UNION members were performing managerial functions and thus were not merely supervisory
employees. Moreover, PT&T alleged that a certified bargaining unit already existed among its rank-
and-file employees which barred the filing of the petition.
On 27 November 1990, respondent UNION opposed the motion to dismiss, contending that under the
Labor Code supervisory employees are not eligible to join the Labor organization of the rank-and-file
employees although they may form their own.
On 4 December 1990, PT&T filed its reply to the opposition and manifested that it is the function of an
employee which is determinative of whether said employee is a managerial or supervisory employee.
On 11 December 1990, the Med-Arbiter granted the petition and ordered that "a certification election .
. . (be) conducted among the supervisory personnel of the Philippine Telegraph & Telephone
Corporation (PT&T)."4 Petitioner PT&T appealed to the Secretary of Labor and Employment.
On 24 May 1991, PT&T filed its supplemental appeal and attached copies of the job descriptions and
employment service records of these supervisory employees, including samples of memoranda and
notices they made which purportedly illustrate their excercise of management prerogatives. On 31
May 1991, petitioner submitted more job descriptions to further bolster its contention.
On 11 June 1991, the Acting Secretary of Labor and Employment Nieves R. Confesor denied
petitioner's appeal for lack of merit. However, she did not rule on the additional evidence presented by
PT&T. Instead, she directed that the evidence "should be scrutinized and . . . considered during the
exclusion-inclusion proceedings where the employees who should be part of the bargaining unit . . .
will be determined."5
On 15 August 1991, respondent Undersecretary of Labor and Employment Bienvenido E. Laguesma
denied reconsideration of the resolution dismissing the appeal. Hence, the instant petition anchored
on the ground that public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in failing to rule on the
additional evidence submitted by petitioner which would have buttressed its contention that there
were no supervisory employees in its employ and which, as a consequence, would have barred the
holding of a certification election.
The petition is devoid of merit.
The applicable provision of law in the case at bar is Art. 257 of the Labor Code. It reads —
Art. 257. Petitions in unorganized establishments. — In any establishment where there is
no certified bargaining agent, a certification election shall automatically be conducted by
the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate labor organization (emphasis
supplied).
The supervisory employees of PT&T did not yet have a certified bargaining agent to represent them
at the time the UNION, which is legitimate labor organization duly registered with the Department of
Labor and Employment,6 filed the petition for certification election. Since no certified bargaining agent
represented the supervisory employees, PT&T may be deemed an unorganized establishment within
the purview of Art. 257 of the Labor Code.
The fact that petitioner's rank-and-file employees were already represented by a certified bargaining
agent doe not make PT&T an organized establishment vis-a-vis the supervisory employees. After all,
supervisory employees are "not . . . eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file
employees."7
Consequently, the Med-Arbiter, as sustained by public respondent, committed no grave abuse of
discretion in granting the petition for certification election among the supervisory employee of
petitioner PT&T because Art. 257 of the Labor Code provides that said election should be
automatically conducted upon filing of the petition. In fact, Sec. 6 of Rule V, Book V, of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations makes it mandatory for the Med-Arbiter to order the holding of a
certification election. It reads —
Sec. 6. Procedure. — Upon receipt of a petition, the Regional Director shall assign the
case to a Med-Arbiter for appropriate action. The Med-Arbiter, upon receipt of the
assigned petition, shall have twenty (20) working days from submission of the case for
resolution within which to dismiss or grant the petition.
In a petition filed by a legitimate organization involving an unorganized establishment, the
Med-Arbiter shall immediately order the conduct of a certification election . . . (emphasis
supplied)
Furthermore, PT&T did not possess the legal personality to file a motion to dismiss the petition for
certification election even if based on the ground that its supervisory employees are in reality
managerial employees. It is well-settled that an employer has no standing to question a certification
election8 since this is the sole concern of the workers.9 The only exception to this rule is where the
employer has to file the petition for certification election itself pursuant to Art. 258 10 of the Labor
Code because it was requested to bargain collectively. But, other that this instance, the choice of a
collective bargaining agent is purely the internal affair of labor. 11
What PT&T should have done was to question the inclusion of any disqualified employee in the
certification election during the exclusion-inclusion proceedings before the representation officer.
Indeed, this is precisely the purpose of the exclusion-inclusion proceedings, i.e., to determine who
among the employees are entitled to vote and be part of the bargaining unit sought to be certified.
Then Acting Secretary Nieves D. Confesor therefore did not abuse her discretion when she opted not
to act upon the additional evidence by petitioner PT&T. For, the holding of a certification election in an
unorganized establishment is mandatory and must immediately be ordered upon petition by a
legitimate labor organization, which is the case here.
At any rate, the additional evidence presented by petitioner failed to sufficiently show that the
supervisory employees who sought to be included in the bargaining unit were in fact performing
managerial functions. On the contrary, while these supervisory employees did excercise independent
judgment which is not routinary or clerical in nature, their authority was merely recommendatory in
character. In all instances, they were still accountable for their actions to a superior officer, i.e., their
respective superintendents. The Solicitor General succinctly puts it thus —
A perusal of petitioner's annexes . . . would readily show that the power of said
supervisors in matters relating to the excercise of prerogatives for or against rank-and-file
employees is not absolute but merely recommendatory in character. Note that their
reports recommending or imposing disciplinary action against rank-and-file employees
always bore the concurrence of one or two superiors . . . and the job descriptions . . .
clearly stated that these supervisors directly reported to a superior and were accountable
to the latter 12 (emphasis supplied).
As the Med-Arbiter himself noted, "It is incredible that only rank-and-file and managerial employees
are the personnel of respondent firm, considering the line of service it offers to the public" 13 and the
fact that it employed 2,500 employees, more or less, all over the country.
A word more. PT&T alleges that respondent UNION is affiliated with the same national federation
representing its rank-and-file employees. Invoking Atlas Lithographic Services, Inc. v. Laguesma, 14
PT&T seeks the disqualification of respondent UNION. Respondent, however, denied it was affiliated
with the same national federation of the rank-and-file employees union, the Associated Labor Union
or ALU. It clarified that the PT&T Supervisory Employees Union is affiliated with Associated
Professional, Supervisory Office, Technical Employees Union or APSOTEU, which is a separate and
distinct national federation from ALU.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with prayer for the
issuance of a temporary restraining order is DENIED.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Cruz, Griño-Aquino and Quiason, JJ., concur.
# Footnotes
1 Annex "A", Petition; Rollo, pp. 22-26.
2 Annex "G", Petition; Rollo, pp. 28-30.
3 Annex "B", Petition; Rollo, pp. 28-30.
4 Annex "G", Petition, p. 3; Rollo, p. 52.
5 Annex "A", Petition, p. 3; Rollo, p. 25.
6 Rollo, p. 32.
7 Art. 245. Ineligibility of manegerial 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).
8 California Manufacturing Corporation v. Laguesma, G.R. No. 97020, 8 June 1992, 209
SCRA 606.
9 Asian Design and Manufacturing Corporation v. Calleja, G.R. No. 77415, 29 June 1989,
174 SCRA 477.
10 Art. 258. When an employer may file petition. — When requested to bargain
collectively, an employer may petition the Bureau for an election. If there is no existing
certified collective bargaining agreement in the unit, the Bureau shall, after hearing, order
a certification election . . . .
11 Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services v. Trajano, G.R. No. 61153, 17
January 1983, 120 SCRA 64.
12 Comment, p. 5; Rollo, p. 164.
13 Annex "G", Petition, p. 2; Rollo, p. 51.
14 G.R. No. 96566, 6 January 1992, 205 SCRA 12.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
