qualified from becoming union members of any organization within the

19. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, petitioner, vs. THE HON. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND same bargaining unit.
EMPLOYMENT, STAFF AND TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION OF MERALCO, and
FIRST LINE ASSOCIATION OF MERALCO SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES, respondents. 2. The petition alleged that "while there exists a duly-organized union for
G.R. No. 91902, May 20, 1991 rank and file employees in Pay Grade I-VI, which is the MERALCO
Ian Aquino Employees and Worker's Association (MEWA) which holds a valid CBA for
the rank and file employees,1 there is no other labor organization except
NATURE Action to cancel Certificate of Registration
Plaintiff MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY STEAM-PCWF claiming to represent the MERALCO employees.
Defendant STAFF AND TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION OF MERALCO, and
3. MERALCO moved for the dismissal of the petition on the following
FIRST LINE ASSOCIATION OF MERALCO SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES
grounds:
Ponente J., MEDIALDEA

EMPLOYER: MERALCO I. The employees sought to be represented by petitioner are either 1) man-
agerial who are prohibited by law from forming or joining supervisory
union; 2) security services personnel who are prohibited from joining or as-
EMPLOYEE: Labor Union of Rank and File Employees who do not want to be part of the sisting the rank-and-file union; 3) secretaries who do not consent to the peti-
current Union tioner's representation and whom petitioner can not represent; and 4) rank-
and-file employees represented by the certified or duly recognized bargain-
DOCTRINE. The implementing rules of RA 6715, therefore, insofar as they ing representative of the only rank-and-file bargaining unit in the company,
disqualify security guards from joining a rank and file organization are null and the Meralco Employees Workers Association (MEWA), in accordance with
void, for being not germane to the object and purposes of EO 111 and RA 6715 the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement with the latter.
upon which such rules purportedly derive statutory moorings.
II. The petition for certification election will disturb the administration of
While therefore under the old rules, security guards were barred from joining a la- the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement in violation of Art. 232 of the
bor organization of the rank and file, under RA 6715, they may now freely join a Labor Code.
labor organization of the rank and file or that of the supervisory union, depending
on their rank. By accommodating supervisory employees, the Secretary of Labor III. The petition itself shows that it is not supported by the written consent
must likewise apply the provisions of RA 6715 to security guards by favorably al- of at least twenty percent (20%) of the alleged 2,500 employees sought to
lowing them free access to a labor organization, whether rank and file or supervi- be represented.
sory, in recognition of their constitutional right to self-organization.
4. As regards those rank and file employees enumerated in Sec. 3, Art. I,
MERALCO contends that since they are already beneficiaries of the
MEWA-CBA, they may not be treated as a separate and distinct appropriate
bargaining unit. MERALCO raised the same argument with respect to em-
FACTS. ployees sought to be represented by STEAM-PCWF, claiming that these
were already covered by the MEWA-CBA.
1. On November 22, 1988, the Staff and Technical Employees Association of
MERALCO (hereafter "STEAM-PCWF") a labor organization of staff and 5. (c) description of the bargaining unit which shall be the employer unit un-
technical employees of MERALCO, filed a petition for certification elec- less circumstances otherwise require, and provided, further: that the appro-
tion, seeking to represent regular employees of MERALCO who are: (a) priate bargaining unit of the rank and file employees shall not include secu-
non-managerial employees with Pay Grades VII and above; (b) non-man- rity guards (As amended by Sec. 6, Implementing Rules of EO 111)
agerial employees in the Patrol Division, Treasury Security Services Sec-
tion, Secretaries who are automatically removed from the bargaining unit;
and (c) employees within the rank and file unit who are automatically dis-
LABOR LAW 2 | G03 | ATTY. QUAN
 1. W/N the security guards are eligible to be lumped with the rank-and-file Union and/or
supervisory Union —YES.

LABOR ARBITER In questioning the Secretary of Labor's directive allowing security guards
(Treasury/Patrol Services Section) to be represented by respondents, MERALCO
Med-Arbiter ruled that having been excluded from the existing contends that this contravenes the provisions of the recently passed RA 6715 and its
Collective Bargaining Agreement for rank and file employees, these implementing rules (specifically par. 2, Sec. 1, Rule II, Book V) which disqualifies
employees have the right to form a union of their own, except supervisory employees and security guards from membership in a labor organization
those employees performing managerial functions. With respect to of the rank and file (p. 11, Rollo).
those employees who had resented their alleged involuntary
membership in the existing CBA, the Med-Arbiter stated that the The Secretary of Labor's Resolution was obviously premised on the provisions of
holding of a certification election would allow them to fully translate Art. 212, then par. (k), of the 1988 Labor Code defining "managerial" and "rank and
their sentiment on the matter, and thus directed the holding of a file" employees, the law then in force when the complaint was filed. At the time,
certification election. only two groups of employees were recognized, the managerial and rank and file.
This explains the absence of evidence on job descriptions on who would be classified
NLRC
managerial employees. It is perhaps also for this reason why the Secretary of Labor
limited his classification of the Meralco employees belonging to Pay Grades VII and
MERALCO appealed, contending that "until such time that a judicial finding is made up, to only two groups, the managerial and rank and file.
to the effect that they are not managerial employee, STEAM-PCWF cannot represent
employees from Pay Grades VII and above, additionally reiterating the same reasons
However, pursuant to the Department of Labor's goal of strenghthening the constitu-
they had advanced for disqualifying respondent STEAM-PCWF.
tional right of workers to self-organization, RA 6715 was subsequently passed which
reorganized the employee-ranks by including a third group, or the supervisory em-
MEWA filed an appeal-in-intervention and the First Line Association ployees, and laying down the distinction between supervisory employees and those
of Meralco Supervisory Employees (hereafter FLAMES) filed a of managerial ranks in Art. 212, renumbered par. [m], depending on whether the em-
similar petition seeking to represent those employees with Pay ployee concerned has the power to lay down and execute management policies, in
Grades VII to XIV, since "there is no other supervisory union at the case of managerial employees, or merely to recommend them, in case of supervi-
MERALCO." sory employees.

Secretary of Labor affirmed with modification, the assailed order of the Med-Arbiter, In this petition, MERALCO has admitted that the employees belonging to Pay
disposing as follows: Grades VII and up are supervisory (p. 10, Rollo). The records also show that
STEAM-PCWF had "renounced its representation of the employees in Patrol Divi-
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Order appealed from is hereby af- sion, Treasury Security Service Section and rank and file employees in Pay Grades
firmed but modified as far as the employees covered by Section 3, Article I I-VI" (p. 6, Rollo); while FLAMES, on the other hand, had limited its representa-
of the exist CBA in the Company are concerned. Said employees shall re- tion to employees belonging to Pay Grades VII-XIV, generally accepted as supervi-
main in the unit of the rank-and-file already existing and may exercise their sory employees, as follows:
right to self organization as above enunciated.
It must be emphasized that private respondent First Line Association of Meralco Su-
pervisory Employees seeks to represent only the Supervisory Employees with Pay
COURT OF APPEALS Grades VII to XIV.
MERALCO's motion for reconsideration was denied
Supervisory Employees with Pay Grades VII to XIV are not managerial employees.
ISSUE/S and RULING:
In fact the petition itself of petitioner Manila Electric Company on page 9, paragraph
ALL ISSUES PLEASE 3 of the petition stated as follows, to wit:

LABOR LAW 2 | G03 | ATTY. QUAN

There was no need for petitioner to prove that these employees are not rank-and-file. Sec. 2. Who may file.—Any legitimate labor organization or the
As adverted to above, the private respondents admit that these are not the rank-and- employer, when requested to bargain collectively, may file the pe-
file but the supervisory employees, whom they seek to represent. What needs to be tition.
established is the rank where supervisory ends and managerial begins.
The petition, when filed by a legitimate labor-organization shall
and First Line Association of Meralco Supervisory Employees herein states that Pay contain, among others:
Grades VII to XIV are not managerial employees. In fact, although employees with
Pay Grade XV carry the Rank of Department Managers, these employees only en- (a) . . .
joys (sic) the Rank Manager but their recommendatory powers are subject to evalua-
tion, review and final action by the department heads and other higher executives of (b) . . .
the company. (FLAMES' Memorandum, p. 305, Rollo)
(c) description of the bargaining unit which shall be the employer
Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the employees from Pay Grades VII and up unit unless circumstances otherwise require; and provided further,
have been recognized and accepted as supervisory. On the other hand, those that the appropriate bargaining unit of the rank-and-file employees
employees who have been automatically disqualified have been directed by the shall not include supervisory employees and/or security guards;
Secretary of Labor to remain in the existing labor organization for the rank and file,
(the condition in the CBA deemed as not having been written into the contract, as The implementing rules of RA 6715, therefore, insofar as they disqualify security
unduly restrictive of an employee's exercise of the right to self-organization). guards from joining a rank and file organization are null and void, for being not
germane to the object and purposes of EO 111 and RA 6715 upon which such rules
purportedly derive statutory moorings.
We shall now discuss the rights of the security guards to self-organize.
MERALCO has questioned the legality of allowing them to join either the
While therefore under the old rules, security guards were barred from joining a labor
rank and file or the supervisory union, claiming that this is a violation of
organization of the rank and file, under RA 6715, they may now freely join a labor
par. 2, Sec. 1, Rule II, Book V of the Implementing Rules of RA 6715,
organization of the rank and file or that of the supervisory union, depending on their
which states as follows:
rank. By accommodating supervisory employees, the Secretary of Labor must like-
wise apply the provisions of RA 6715 to security guards by favorably allowing them
Sec 1. Who may join unions. . . . free access to a labor organization, whether rank and file or supervisory, in recogni-
tion of their constitutional right to self-organization.
xxx xxx xxx

Supervisory employees and security guards shall not be eligible DECISION.

for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file em- Petition AFFIRMED. RESPONDENTS WON
ployees but may join, assist or form separate labor organizations of
their own; . . .
DISPOSITIVE PORTION

Paragraph 2, Sec. 1, Rule II, Book V, is similar to Sec. 2 (c), Rule V, also of ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. We AFFIRM with modifica-
Book V of the implementing rules of RA 6715: tion the Resolution of the Secretary of Labor dated November 3, 1989 upholding an
employee's right to self-organization. A certification election is hereby ordered con-
Rule V. ducted among supervisory employees of MERALCO, belonging to Pay Grades VII
REPRESENTATION CASES AND and above, using as guideliness an employee's power to either recommend or execute
INTERNAL-UNION CONFLICTS management policies, pursuant to Art. 212 (m), of the Labor Code, as amended by
Sec. 4 of RA 6715, with respondents STEAM-PCWF and FLAMES as choices.
Sec. 1. . . .
LABOR LAW 2 | G03 | ATTY. QUAN
Employees of the Patrol Division, Treasury Security Services Section and Secretaries
may freely join either the labor organization of the rank and file or that of the super-
visory union depending on their employee rank. Disqualified employees covered by
Sec. 3, Art. I of the MEWA-CBA, shall remain with the existing labor organization
of the rank and file, pursuant to the Secretary of Labor's directive:

By the parties' own agreement, they find the bargaining unit, which includes
the positions enumerated in Section 3, Article I of their CBA, appropriate
for purposes of collective bargaining. The composition of the bargaining
unit should be left to the agreement of the parties, and unless there are legal
infirmities in such agreement, this Office will not substitute its judgment for
that of the parties. Consistent with the story of collective bargaining in the
company, the membership of said group of employees in the existing rank-
and-file unit should continue, for it will enhance stability in that unit already
well establish. However, we cannot approve of the condition set in Section
3, Article I of the CBA that the employees covered are automatically dis-
qualified from becoming union members. The condition unduly restricts the
exercise of the right to self organization by the employees in question. It is
contrary to law and public policy and, therefore, should be considered to
have not been written into the contract. Accordingly, the option to join or
not to join the union should be left entirely to the employees themselves. (p.
229, Rollo)

The Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued on February 26, 1990 is hereby
LIFTED. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

LABOR LAW 2 | G03 | ATTY. QUAN