Anda di halaman 1dari 8

8/29/2016

PepsiColaProductsPhilIncvsSecofLabor:96663:August10,1999:J.Purisima:ThirdDivision

Syllabi/Synopsis

THIRDDIVISION

[G.R.No.96663.August10,1999]

PEPSI COLA PRODUCTS PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs. HONORABLE


SECRETARY OF LABOR, MED ARBITER NAPOLEON V. FERNANDO &
PEPSI COLA SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES ORGANIZATION UOEF,
respondents.

[G.R.No.103300.August10,1999]

PEPSICOLAPRODUCTSPHILIPPINES,petitioner,vs.OFFICEOFTHESECRETARY
DEPARTMENTOFLABORANDHON.CELENION.DAING,inhiscapacityas
MedArbiter Labor Regional Office No. X, Cagayan de Oro City, CAGAYAN DE
OROPEPSICOLASUPERVISORSUNION(UOEF),respondents.
DECISION
PURISIMA,J.:

Thesearepetitionsforcertiorarirelatingtothree(3)casesfiledwiththeMedArbiter,towit:MEDARB
ROX Case No. R1009101RU002 for Certification Election filed by Pepsi Cola Supervisors UnionUOEF
(Union), MED ARB Case No. R10009102RU008, Re: Petition to Set Aside, Cancel and/ or Revoke the
Charter Affiliation of the Union, and MEDARB ROX Case No. R10009104RU012, for Cancellation of
RegistrationCertificateNo.11492LCinfavoroftheUnion.
G.R.No.96663
Thefactsthatmattercanbeculledasfollows:
Sometime in June 1990, the PepsiCola Employees OrganizationUOEF (Union) filed a petition for
certificationelectionwiththeMedArbiterseekingtobetheexclusivebargainingagentofsupervisorsofPepsi
ColaPhilippines,Inc.(PEPSI).
OnJuly12,1990,theMedArbitergrantedthePetition,withtheexplicitstatementthatitwasanaffiliateof
UniondeObrerosEstivadoresdeFilipinas(federation)togetherwithtwo(2)rankandfileunions,PepsiCola
LaborUnity(PCLU)andPepsiColaEmployeesUnionofthePhilippines(PEUP).
OnJuly23,1990,PEPSIfiledwiththeBureauofLaborRelationsapetitiontoSetAside,Canceland/or
RevokeCharterAffiliationoftheUnion,entitledPCPPIv.PCEUUOEFanddocketedasCaseNo.72590,on
thegroundsthat(a)themembersoftheUnionweremanagersand(b)asupervisorsunioncannotaffiliatewitha
federationwhosemembersincludetherankandfileunionofthesamecompany.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/aug99/96663.htm

1/8

8/29/2016

PepsiColaProductsPhilIncvsSecofLabor:96663:August10,1999:J.Purisima:ThirdDivision

OnAugust29,1990,PEPSIpresentedamotiontoreopenthecasesinceitwasnotfurnishedwithacopyof
thePetitionforCertificationElection.
OnSeptember4,1990,PEPSIsubmitteditspositionpapertotheBLRinCaseNo.72590.
OnSeptember21,1990,PEPSIreceivedsummonstoappearatthepretrialconferencesetonSeptember
25,1990butwhichthehearingofficerrescheduledonOctober21,1990.
OnOctober12,1990,PEPSIfiledaNoticeofAppealandMemorandumofAppealwiththeSecretaryof
Labor, questioning the setting of the certification election on the said date and five (5) days after. It also
presented an urgent ExParte Motion to Suspend the Certification Election, which motion was granted on
October18,1990.
OnNovember12,1990,theSecretaryofLabordeniedtheappealandMotionforReconsideration.Evenas
the Petition to Cancel, Revoke and Suspend Union Charter Certificate was pending before the BLR, PEPSI
founditswaytothisCourtviathepresentpetitionforcertiorari.
On February 6, 1991, the Court granted the prayer for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary
injunction.
Thepivotofinquiryhereis:whetherornotasupervisorsunioncanaffiliatewiththesameFederationof
whichtwo(2)rankandfileunionsarelikewisemembers,withoutviolatingArticle245oftheLaborCode(PD
442),asamended,byRepublicAct6715,whichprovides:
Art.245.Ineligibilityofmanagerialemployeestojoinanylabororganizationrightofsupervisoryemployees.
Managerialemployeesarenoteligibletojoin,assistorformanylabororganization.Supervisoryemployees
shallnotbeeligibleformembershipinalabororganizationoftherankandfileemployeesbutmayjoin,assist
orformseparatelabororganizationsoftheirown.
InitsCommentdatedMarch19,1991,theFederationarguedthat:
ThepertinentportionofArticle245oftheLaborCodestatesthat.Supervisoryemployeesshallnotbeeligible
formembershipinalabororganizationoftherankandfileemployeesbutmayjoin,assistorformseparatelabor
organizationoftheirown.
Thisprovisionoflawdoesnotprohibitalocalunioncomposedofsupervisoryemployeesfrombeingaffiliated
toafederationwhichhaslocalunionswithrankandfilemembersasaffiliates.
xxxxxxxxx
xxxthePetitiontoCancel,RevokeorSetAsidetheCharterCertificateoftheprivaterespondentisanchoredon
theallegedgroundthatcertainmanagerialemployeesareincludedasmembersthereof.Thegroundsforthe
cancellationoftheregistrationcertificateofalabororganizationareprovidedinSection7ofRuleII,BookVof
theOmnibusRulesImplementingtheLaborCode,andtheinclusionofmanagerialemployeesisnotoneofthe
grounds.xxx(inthiscase,theprivaterespondentherein)remainstobealegitimatelabororganization.[1]
OnApril8,1991,theSecretaryofLaborandEmployment,throughtheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral,sent
inaComment,alleginginteralia,that:
xxxunderArticle259oftheNewLaborCode,onlyordersoftheMedArbitercanbeappealedthroughthe
SecretaryofLaborandonlyonthegroundthattherulesandregulationsfortheconductofthecertification
electionhavebeenviolated.TheOrderoftheRepresentationOfficerisinterlocutoryandnotappealable.xxx
xxxuntilandunlessthereisafinalordercancellingitscertificateofregistrationorchartercertificate,alabor
organizationremainstobealegitimatelabororganizationentitledtoexercisealltherightsanddutiesaccorded
toitbytheLaborCodeincludingtherighttobecertifiedasabargainingrepresentative.xxx

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/aug99/96663.htm

2/8

8/29/2016

PepsiColaProductsPhilIncvsSecofLabor:96663:August10,1999:J.Purisima:ThirdDivision

xxxPublicrespondentcannotbedeemedtohavecommittedgraveabuseofdiscretionwithrespecttoanissue
thatwasneverpresentedbeforeitforresolution.xxx
Article245oftheNewLaborCodedoesnotprecludethesupervisorsunionandtherankandfileunionfrom
beingaffiliatedwiththesamefederation.
xxxxxxxxx
AfederationoflocalunionisnotthelabororganizationreferredtoinArticle245butonlybecomesentitledto
alltherightsenjoyedbythelabororganization(atthecompanylevel)whenithascompliedwiththeregistration
requirementsfoundinArticles234and237.Hence,whatisprohibitedbyArticle245ismembershipof
supervisoryemployeesinalaborunion(atthecompanylevel)oftherankandfile.xxx
xxxInotherwords,theaffiliationofthesupervisoryemployeesunionwiththesamefederationwithwhichthe
rankandfileemployeesunionisaffiliateddidnotmakethesupervisoryemployeesmembersoftherankandfile
employeesunionandviceversa.[2]xxx
PEPSI,initsReplydatedMay7,1991,asserted:
ItisourhumblecontentionthatafinaldeterminationofthePetitiontoSetAside,Cancel,RevokeCharterUnion
AffiliationshouldfirstbedisposedofbeforegrantingthePetitionfortheConductofCertificationElection.To
allowtheconductofthecertificationelectiontoproceedwouldmakeanydecisionarrivedatbytheBureauof
LaborRelationsuselessinasmuchasthesamewouldnecessarilyberenderedmootandacademic.[3]
OnJune7,1991,petitioneragainfiledaSupplementalReplystressing:
ItislikewisestressedthatofficialsofboththePCLUandPEUParetoprankingofficersofUOEF,thefederation
ofsupervisorsunion,towit:
POSITIONINRANKANDFILEPOSITIONINFEDERATION
UNION
1.RogeliodelaCruzPCLUPresidentGeneralVicePresident
2.FelixGatelaPEUPPresidentGeneralTreasurer
3.CarlitoEpinoPCLUBoardMemberEducationalResearch
Director
xxxxxxxxx
Therespondentsupervisoryunioncoulddoindirectlywhatitcouldnotdodirectlyasthesimpleexpedientof
affiliatingwithUOEFwouldnegatethemanifestintentandletterofthelawthatsupervisoryemployeescan
onlyjoin,assistorformseparatelabororganizationsoftheirownandcannotbeeligibleformembershipina
labororganizationoftherankandfileemployees.[4]
OnAugust6,1991,theSecretaryofLaborandEmploymentfiledaRejoinder,claimingthus:
xxxanemployerhasnolegalstandingtoquestionthevalidityofacertificationelection.
xxxForthisreason,theSupremeCourthasconsistentlyheldthat,asarule,acertificationelectionisthesole
andexclusiveconcernoftheemployeesandthattheemployerisdefinitelyanintruderoramerebystander
(ConsolidatedFarmsvs.Noriel,L47752,July31,1978,84SCRA469FilipinoMetalsCorporationvs.Ople,
L43861,September4,1981,107SCRA211TradeUnionsofthePhilippinesandAlliedServices(TUPAS)vs.
TrajanoNo.L61153,January17,1983,120SCRA64].
xxxxxxxxx
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/aug99/96663.htm

3/8

8/29/2016

PepsiColaProductsPhilIncvsSecofLabor:96663:August10,1999:J.Purisima:ThirdDivision

InAdamson&Adamson,Inc.vs.CIRNo.L35120,January31,1984,127SCRA268,theSupremeCourt(then
dealingwiththeinterpretationofSection3oftheIndustrialPeaceAct,fromwhichSection245oftheLabor
Codewasderived)grappledwiththeissueinthecaseatbar.Itheldthat,
ThereisnothingintheprovisionsoftheIndustrialPeaceActwhichprovidesthatadulyregisteredlocalunion
affiliatingwithanationalunionorfederationlosesitslegalpersonality,oritsindependence.
xxxxxxxxx
However,thereisabsolutelynothingintheLaborCodethatprohibitsafederationfromrepresentingor
exercisinginfluenceoveritsaffiliates.Onthecontrary,thisispreciselythereasonwhyfederationsareformed
andareallowedbylawtoexist.[5]
OnNovember8,1991,theUnionalsofiledaRejoinder.
On December 9, 1991, the Court resolved to DISMISS the case for failure to sufficiently show that the
questionedjudgmentistaintedwithgraveabuseofdiscretion.
In a Resolution dated March 2, 1992, the Second Division of the Court resolved to grant the motion for
reconsiderationinterposedonJanuary28,1992.
G.R.No.103300
WhatareassailedinthiscaseisMedArbiterOrderdatedMay23,1991andtheDecisionandOrderofthe
SecretaryofLaborandEmployment,datedOctober4,1991andDecember12,1991,respectively.
ThedecretalportionoftheMedArbiterOrderunderattack,reads:
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,anorderisherebyissued:
1.DismissingMEDARBROXCASENO.R1000919104RU012andR10009102RU008forlackofmerit
and
2.OrderingtheconductofaCertificationElectiontobeparticipatedbyandamongthesupervisoryworkersof
therespondentcompany,PepsiColaProductsPhilippines,Inc.atitsplantatTinao,CagayandeOroCity,
includingallthesatellitewarehousewithintheterritorialcoverageandcontroloftheCagayandeOroPepsi
ColaPlant.Thechoicesareasfollows:
1.CagayandeOroPepsiColaSupervisorsUnion(U.O.E.P.)
2.Nounion
ThepartiesaredirectedtoattendapreelectionconferenceonJune10,1991,2:30p.m.attheRegionalOfficeto
determinethequalificationofthevotersandtothreshoutthemechanicsoftheelection.Respondent/employeris
directedtosubmitfive(5)copiesofthenamesoftherankandfileworkerstakenfromthepayrollonOctober1
31,1991,alphabeticallyarranged(sic)indicatingtheirnamesandpositionsanddatesofemploymentandto
bringtheaforementionedpayrollduringthepreelectionconferenceforverificationpurposes.[6]xxx
ThesupervisoryemployeesoftheUnionare:
POSITION
1.FelipeValdehuezaRouteManager
2.GerbertoVertudazoC&CManager
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/aug99/96663.htm

4/8

8/29/2016

PepsiColaProductsPhilIncvsSecofLabor:96663:August10,1999:J.Purisima:ThirdDivision

3.PaulMendozaSalesServiceDepartmentManager
4.GilbertoEmano,Jr.RouteManager
5.JaimeHuligangaChiefChecker
6.EliasEdgama,Sr.AccountingManager
7.RomanicoRamosRouteManager
8.RaulYacapinRouteManager
9.JovenalAlbaqueRouteManager
10.FulvioNarcisoRouteManager
11.ApolinarioOpinianoRouteManager
12.AlfredoPanasRouteManager
13.SimplicioNelieRouteManager
14.ArthurRodriguezRouteManager
15.MarcoIlanoWarehouseOperationsManagerand
16.DeodoroRamosMaintenanceManager
OnJune6,1991,PEPSIappealedthesaidOrdertotheSecretaryofLaborandEmploymentontheground
ofgraveabuseofdiscretion,docketedasCaseNo.OSA23291.
OnOctober4,1991,theSecretarymodifiedtheappealeddecision,rulingthus:
WHEREFORE,theOrderoftheMedArbiterdated23May1991isherebymodifiedtotheeffectthatMED
ARBROXCaseNo.R10009104RU012andR10009102RU008areherebyreferredtotheOfficeofthe
RegionalDirectorwhichhasjurisdictionoverthesecases.Thecallforcertificationelectionamongthe
supervisoryworkersofthePepsiColaProductsPhilippines,Inc.atitsplantatTinao,CagayandeOroCityis
herebysustained.[7]
On October 19, 1991, PEPSI presented a motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid Order but the same
wasdeniedonDecember12,1991.
Meanwhile, the BLR issued Registration Certificate No. 11492LC in favor of the Union. Dissatisfied
therewith,PEPSIbroughttheinstantpetitionforcertiorari,contendingthat:
PUBLICRESPONDENTCOMMITTEDGRAVEABUSEOFDISCRETIONINRULINGTHAT
PRIVATERESPONDENTSOFFICERSANDMEMBERSARENOTMANAGERIALEMPLOYEES
PRIVATERESPONDENTISPROHIBITEDFROMAFFILIATINGITSELFWITHAFEDERATION
ALREADYAFFILIATEDWITHTHERANKANDFILEUNION
PUBLICRESPONDENTCOMMITTEDGRAVEOF(SIC)ABUSEOFDISCRETIONINRULING
THATTHEINSTITUTIONOFAPETITIONFORCANCELLATIONOFUNIONREGISTRATION
DOESNOTCONSTITUTEAPREJUDICIALQUESTIONTOAPETITIONCERTIFICATION
ELECTION.[8]
Thepetitionsmustfailforwantofmerit.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/aug99/96663.htm

5/8

8/29/2016

PepsiColaProductsPhilIncvsSecofLabor:96663:August10,1999:J.Purisima:ThirdDivision

At the outset, it must be stressed that on September 1, 1992, there was a Resolution of the Union
withdrawingfromtheFederation,towit:
BEITRESOLVED,asitisherebyRESOLVED,thatthisUNIONWITHDRAW,asitherebyWITHDRAWSits
affiliationfromtheUniondeObrerosEstivadoresdeFilipinas,andatthesametime,giveourthankstothesaid
federationforitshelpandguidancerenderedtothisUnioninthepast.[9]
TheissueinG.R.No.96663,whetherornotthesupervisorsunioncanbeaffiliatedwithaFederationwith
two(2)rankandfileunionsdirectlyunderthesupervisionoftheformer,hasthusbecomemootandacademicin
viewoftheUnionswithdrawalfromthefederation.
In a long line of cases (Narciso Nakpil, et. al., vs. Hon. Crisanto Aragon, et. al.,, G. R. No. L 24087,
January22,1980,95SCRA85Toribiov.Bidin,et.al.,G.R.No.L37960,February28,1980,96SCRA361
Gumaua v. Espino, G.R. No. L 36188 37586 February 29, 1980, 96 SCRA 402), the Court dismissed the
petitionforbeingmootandacademic.InthecaseofF.C.Fisherv.YangcoSteamshipCo.,March31,1915,the
Courtheld:
Itisunnecessary,howevertoindulgeinacademicdiscussionofamootquestion.xxx
xxxTheactionwouldhavebeendismissedatanytimeonashowingofthefactsastheywere.Thequestionleft
forthecourtwasamootone.ItsResolutionwouldhavebeenuseless.Itsjudgmentwouldhavebeenimpossible
ofexecutionxxx.
However,inthecaseofUniversityofSanAgustin,Inc.,etal.vs.CourtofAppeals,etal.,thecourtresolved
thecase,rulingthatevenifacaseweremootandacademic,astatementofthegoverningprincipleisappropriate
intheresolutionofdismissalfortheguidancenotonlyofthepartiesbutofotherssimilarlysituated.xxx[10]
InAtlasLithographicServices,Inc.v.Laguesma,205SCRA12,[1992]decidedbytheThirdDivisionwith
J.Gutierrez,Jr.,asponenteandJJ.Feliciano,Bidin,RomeroandnowChiefJusticeDavide,Jr.,asmembersit
wasratiocinated:
xxxxxxxxx
Thus,iftheintentofthelawistoavoidasituationwheresupervisorswouldmergewiththerankandfileor
wherethesupervisorslabororganizationwouldrepresentconflictinginterests,thenalocalsupervisorsunion
shouldnotbeallowedtoaffiliatewiththenationalfederationofunionofrankandfileemployeeswherethat
federationactivelyparticipatesinunionactivityinthecompany.
xxxxxxxxx
Theprohibitionagainstasupervisorsunionjoiningalocalunionofrankandfileisrepletewithjurisprudence.
TheCourtemphasizesthatthelimitationisnotconfinedtoacaseofsupervisorswantingtojoinarankandfile
union.Theprohibitionextendstoasupervisorslocalunionapplyingformembershipinanationalfederationthe
membersofwhichincludelocalunionsofrankandfileemployees.Theintentofthelawisclearespecially
where,asinthiscaseatbar,thesupervisorswillbecominglingwiththoseemployeeswhomtheydirectly
superviseintheirownbargainingunit.
AnenttheissueofwhetherornotthePetitiontocancel/revokeregistrationisaprejudicialquestiontothe
petition for certification election, the following ruling in the case of Association of the Court of Appeals
Employees(ACAE)vs.Hon.PuraFerrerCalleja,inhercapacityasDirector,BureauofLaborRelationset.Al.,
203ACRA597,598,[1991],isinpoint,towit:
xxxItisawellsettledrulethatacertificationproceedingsisnotalitigationinthesensethatthetermis
ordinarilyunderstood,butaninvestigationofanonadversarialandfactfindingcharacter.(AssociatedLabor
Unions(ALU)v.FerrerCalleja,179SCRA127[1989]PhilippineTelegraphandTelephoneCorporationv.
NLRC,183SCRA451[1990].Thus,thetechnicalrulesofevidencedonotapplyifthedecisiontograntit
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/aug99/96663.htm

6/8

8/29/2016

PepsiColaProductsPhilIncvsSecofLabor:96663:August10,1999:J.Purisima:ThirdDivision

proceedsfromanexaminationofthesufficiencyofthepetitionaswellasacarefullookintothearguments
containedinthepositionpapersandotherdocuments.
Atanyrate,theCourtappliestheestablishedrulecorrectlyfollowedbythepublicrespondentthatanorderto
holdacertificationelectionisproperdespitethependencyofthepetitionforcancellationoftheregistration
certificateoftherespondentunion.Therationaleforthisisthatatthetimetherespondentunionfiledits
petition,itstillhadthelegalpersonalitytoperformsuchactabsentanorderdirectingthecancellation.
xxxxxxxxx
Asregardstheissueofwhetherornotconfidentialemployeescanjointhelaborunionoftherankandfile,
what was held in the case of National Association of Trade Unions (NATU) Republic Planters Bank
Supervisors Chapter vs. Hon. R. D. Torres, et. al., G.R. No. 93468, December 29, 1994, applies to this case.
CitingBulletinPublishingCorporationvs.Sanchez,144SCRA628,635,GoldenFarmsvs.NLRC,175SCRA
471, and Pier 8 Arrastre and Stevedoring Services, Inc. vs. Hon. Nieves RoldanConfessor et al., G.R. No.
110854,February14,1995,theCourtruled:
xxxAconfidentialemployeeisoneentrustedwithconfidenceondelicatematters,orwiththecustody,handling,
orcareandprotectionoftheemployersproperty.WhileArt.245oftheLaborCodesinglesoutmanagerial
employeeasineligibletojoin,assistorformanylabororganization,underthedoctrineofnecessaryimplication,
confidentialemployeesaresimilarlydisqualified.Thisdoctrinestatesthatwhatisimpliedinastatuteisasmuch
apartthereofasthatwhichisexpressed,aselucidatedinseveralcasethelatestofwhichisChuav.Civil
ServiceCommissionwherewesaid:
Nostatutecanbeenactedthatcanprovideallthedetailsinvolvedinitsapplication.Thereisalwaysanomission
thatmaynotmeetaparticularsituation.Whatisthought,atthetimeoftheenactment,tobeanallembracing
legislationmaybeinadequatetoprovidefortheunfoldingeventsofthefuture.Socalledgapsinthelawdevelop
asthelawisenforced.Oneoftherulesofstatutoryconstructionusedtofillinthegapisthedoctrineof
necessaryimplicationxxx,Everystatuteisunderstood,byimplication,tocontainallsuchprovisionsasmaybe
necessarytoeffectuateitsobjectandpurpose,ortomakeeffectiverights,powers,privilegesorjurisdiction
whichitgrants,includingallsuchcollateralandsubsidiaryconsequencesasmaybefairlyandlogicallyinferred
fromitsterms.Exnecessitatelegisxxx
Inapplyingthedoctrineofnecessaryimplication,wetookintoconsiderationtherationalebehindthe
disqualificationofmanagerialemployeesexpressedinBulletinPublishingCorporationv.Sanchez,thusxxxif
thesemanagerialemployeeswouldbelongtoorbeaffiliatedwithaUnion,thelattermightnotbeassuredof
theirloyaltytotheUnioninviewofevidentconflictofinterests.TheUnioncanalsobecomecompany
dominatedwiththepresenceofmanagerialemployeesinUnionmembership.Stateddifferently,inthecollective
bargainingprocess,managerialemployeesaresupposedtobeonthesideoftheemployer,toactasits
representatives,andtoseetoitthatitsinterestarewellprotected.Theemployerisnotassuredofsuchprotection
iftheseemployeesthemselvesareunionmembers.Collectivebargaininginsuchasituationcanbecomeone
sided.ItisthesamereasonthatimpelledthisCourttoconsiderthepositionofconfidentialemployeesas
includedinthedisqualificationfoundinArt.245asifthedisqualificationofconfidentialemployeeswere
writtenintheprovision.Ifconfidentialemployeescouldunionizeinordertobargainforadvantagesfor
themselves,thentheycouldbegovernedbytheirownmotivesratherthantheinterestoftheemployers.
Moreover,unionizationofconfidentialemployeesforthepurposeofcollectivebargainingwouldmeanthe
extensionofthelawtopersonsorindividualswhoaresupposedtoactintheinterestoftheemployers.Itisnot
farfetchedthatinthecourseofcollectivebargaining,theymightjeopardizethatinterestwhichtheyareduty
boundtoprotect.AlongthesamelineofreasoningweheldinGoldenFarms,Inc.vs.FerrerCallejareiteratedin
PhilipsIndustrialDevelopment,Inc.,NLRC,thatconfidentialemployeessuchasaccountingpersonnel,radio
andtelegraphoperatorswho,havingaccesstoconfidentialinformation,maybecomethesourceofundue
advantage.Saidemployee(s)mayactasspyorspiesofeitherpartytoacollectivebargainingagreement.
TheCourtfindsmeritinthesubmissionoftheOSGthatRouteManagers,ChiefCheckersandWarehouse
OperationsManagersaresupervisorswhileCredit&CollectionManagersandAccountingManagersarehighly
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/aug99/96663.htm

7/8

8/29/2016

PepsiColaProductsPhilIncvsSecofLabor:96663:August10,1999:J.Purisima:ThirdDivision

confidentialemployees.Designationshouldbereconciledwiththeactualjobdescriptionofsubjectemployees.
Acarefulscrutinyoftheirjobdescriptionindicatesthattheydontlaydowncompanypolicies.Theirs is not a
finaldeterminationofthecompanypoliciessincetheyhavetoreporttotheirrespectivesuperior.Themerefact
that an employee is designated manager does not necessarily make him one. Otherwise, there would be an
absurdsituationwhereonecanbegiventhetitlejusttobedeprivedoftherighttobeamemberofaunion.In
thecaseofNationalSteelCorporationv.Laguesma,G.R.No.103743,January29,1996,itwasstressedthat:
Whatisessentialisthenatureoftheemployeesfunctionandnotthenomenclatureortitlegiventothejobwhich
determineswhethertheemployeehasrankandfileormanagerialstatus,orwhetherheisasupervisory
employee.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionsunderconsiderationareDISMISSEDbutsubjectDecision,datedOctober4,
1991, of the Secretary of Labor and Employment is MODIFIED in that Credit and Collection Managers and
AccountingManagersarehighlyconfidentialemployeesnoteligibleformembershipinasupervisorsunion.No
pronouncementastocosts.
SOORDERED.
Melo,(Chairman),Vitug,andGonzagaReyes,JJ.,concur.
Panganiban,J.,intheresult.
[1]PepsiColaSupervisoryEmployeesOrganizationUOEF,Comment,pp.46,Rollo,pp.7173.
[2]Rollo,pp.8689,92.
[3]Rollo,p.104.
[4]Rollo,p.110.
[5]Rejoinder,pp.2,3,10,14Rollo,pp.125,126,133,137.
[6]OSGComment,pp.34,Rollo,pp.145146.
[7]OSGComment,p.5,Rollo,p.147.
[8]Petition,pp.8,13,14Rollo,pp.9,14,15.
[9]AnnexI,Rollo,p.213.
[10]230SCRA761,770,citingEasternBroadcastingCorporation(DYRE)vs.Dans,etc,etal.,137SCRA628

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/aug99/96663.htm

8/8