G.R. No. 181531 July 31, 2009NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN HOTELS, RESTAURANTS AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES- MANILA PAVILION HOTEL CHAPTER,Petitioner,vs.SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, HOLIDAY INN MANILA PAVILION HOTEL LABOR UNION AND ACESITE PHILIPPINES HOTEL CORPORATION,Respondents.

In a certification election, all rank and file employees in the appropriate bargaining unit, whether probationary or permanent are entitled to vote. This principle is clearly stated in Art. 255 of the Labor Code which states that the "labor organization designated or selected by the majority of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of the employees in such unit for purposes of collective bargaining." Collective bargaining covers all aspects of the employment relation and the resultant CBA negotiated by the certified union binds all employees in the bargaining unit. Hence, all rank and file employees, probationary or permanent, have a substantial interest in the selection of the bargaining representative. The Code makes no distinction as to their employment status as basis for eligibility in supporting the petition for certification election. The law refers to "all" the employees in the bargaining unit. All they need to be eligible to support the petition is to belong to the "bargaining unit." (Emphasis supplied)

Rule II, Sec. 2 of Department Order No. 40-03, series of 2003, which amended Rule XI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, provides:Rule IISection 2. Who may join labor unions and workers' associations. - All persons employed in commercial, industrial and agricultural enterprises, including employees of government owned or controlled corporations without original charters established under the Corporation Code, as well as employees of religious, charitable, medical or educational institutions whether operating for profit or not, shall have the right to self-organization and to form, join or assist labor unions for purposes of collective bargaining: provided, however, that supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor union of the rank-and-file employees but may form, join or assist separate labor unions of their own. Managerial employees shall not be eligible to form, join or assist any labor unions for purposes of collective bargaining. Alien employees with valid working permits issued by the Department may exercise the right to self-organization and join or assist labor unions for purposes of collective bargaining if they are nationals of a country which grants the same or similar rights to Filipino workers, as certified by the Department of Foreign Affairs.For purposes of this section, any employee, whether employed for a definite period or not, shall beginning on the first day of his/her service, be eligible for membership in any labor organization.All other workers, including ambulant, intermittent and other workers, the self-employed, rural workers and those without any definite employers may form labor organizations for their mutual aid and protection and other legitimate purposes except collective bargaining. (Emphasis supplied)The provision in the CBA disqualifying probationary employees from voting cannot override the Constitutionally-protected right of workers to self-organization, as well as the provisions of the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules on certification elections and jurisprudence thereon.A law is read into, and forms part of, a contract. Provisions in a contract are valid only if they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy.6Rule XI, Sec. 5 of D.O. 40-03, on which the SOLE and the appellate court rely to support their position that probationary employees hired after the issuance of the Order granting the petition for the conduct of certification election must be excluded, should not be read in isolation and must be harmonized with the other provisions of D.O. Rule XI, Sec. 5 of D.O. 40-03, viz:Rule XIx x x xSection 5. Qualification of voters; inclusion-exclusion. - All employees who are members of the appropriate bargaining unit sought to be represented by the petitioner at the time of the issuance of the order granting the conduct of a certification election shall be eligible to vote. An employee who has been dismissed from work but has contested the legality of the dismissal in a forum of appropriate jurisdiction at the time of the issuance of the order for the conduct of a certification election shall be considered a qualified voter, unless his/her dismissal was declared valid in a final judgment at the time of the conduct of the certification election. (Emphasis supplied)x x x xSection 13. Order/Decision on the petition. - Within ten (10) days from the date of the last hearing, the Med-Arbiter shall issue a formal order granting the petition or a decision denying the same. In organized establishments, however, no order or decision shall be issued by the Med-Arbiter during the freedom period.The order granting the conduct of a certification election shall state the following:(a) the name of the employer or establishment;(b) the description of the bargaining unit;(c) a statement that none of the grounds for dismissal enumerated in the succeeding paragraph exists;(d) the names of contending labor unions which shall appear as follows: petitioner union/s in the order in which their petitions were filed, forced intervenor, and no union; and(e) a directive upon the employer and the contending union(s) to submit within ten (10) days from receipt of the order, the certified list of employees in the bargaining unit, or where necessary, the payrolls covering the members of the bargaining unit for the last three (3) months prior to the issuance of the order. (Emphasis supplied)x x x xSection 21.Decision of the Secretary.- The Secretary shall have fifteen (15) days from receipt of the entire records of the petition within which to decide the appeal. The filing of the memorandum of appeal from the order or decision of the Med-Arbiterstaysthe holding of any certification election.The decision of the Secretary shall become final and executory after ten (10) days from receipt thereof by the parties. No motion for reconsideration of the decision shall be entertained. (Emphasis supplied)In light of the immediately-quoted provisions, and prescinding from the principle that all employees are, from the first day of their employment, eligible for membership in a labor organization, it is evident that theperiodofreckoningindeterminingwho shall be included in the list of eligible voters is, in cases where a timely appeal has been filedfromtheOrderoftheMed-Arbiter,thedatewhentheOrderoftheSecretaryofLaborandEmployment, whetheraffirmingordenyingtheappeal,becomesfinalandexecutory.The filing of an appeal to the SOLE from the Med-Arbiters Order stays its execution, in accordance with Sec. 21, and rationally, the Med-Arbiter cannot direct the employer to furnish him/her with the list of eligible voters pending the resolution of the appeal.During the pendency of the appeal, the employer may hire additional employees. To exclude the employees hired after the issuance of the Med-Arbiters Order but before the appeal has been resolved would violate the guarantee that every employee has the right to be part of a labor organization from the first day of their service.A certification election is the process of determining the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining. Collective bargaining, refers to the negotiated contract between a legitimate labor organization and the employer concerning wages, hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment in a bargaining unit.7The significance of an employees right to vote in a certification election cannot thus be overemphasized. For he has considerable interest in the determination of who shall represent him in negotiating the terms and conditions of his employment.Even if the Implementing Rules gives the SOLE 20 days to decide the appeal from the Order of the Med-Arbiter, experience shows that it sometimes takes months to be resolved. To rule then that only those employees hired as of the date of the issuance of the Med-Arbiters Order are qualified to vote would effectively disenfranchise employees hired during the pendency of the appeal. More importantly, reckoning the date of the issuance of the Med-Arbiters Order as the cut-off date would render inutile the remedy of appeal to the SOLE.1avvpIt bears reiteration thatthe true importance of ascertaining the number of valid votes cast is for it to serve as basis for computing the required majority, and not just to determine which union won the elections. The opening of the segregated but valid votes has thus become material. To be sure, the conduct of a certification election has a two-fold objective: to determine the appropriate bargaining unit and to ascertain the majority representation of the bargaining representative, if the employees desire to be represented at all by anyone. It is not simply the determination of who between two or more contending unions won, but whether it effectively ascertains the will of the members of the bargaining unit as to whether they want to be represented and which union they want to represent them.A run-off election refers to an election between the labor unions receiving the two (2) highest number of votes in a certification or consent election with three (3) or more choices, where such a certified or consent election results in none of the three (3) or more choices receiving the majority of the valid votes cast; provided that the total number of votes for all contending unions is at least fifty percent (50%) of the number of votes cast.8With 346 votes cast, 337 of which are now deemed valid and HIMPHLU having only garnered 169 and petitioner having obtained 151 and the choice "NO UNION" receiving 1 vote, then the holding of a run-off election between HIMPHLU and petitioner is in order.

G.R. No. 171153 September 12, 2007SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNIONPHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS ORGANIZATION (SMCEUPTGWO),petitioner,vs.SAN MIGUEL PACKAGING PRODUCTS EMPLOYEES UNIONPAMBANSANG DIWA NG MANGGAGAWANG PILIPINO (SMPPEUPDMP),respondent1.

Alegitimate labor organization19is defined as "any labor organization duly registered with the Department of Labor and Employment, and includesany branch or local thereof."20The mandate of the Labor Code is to ensure strict compliance with the requirements on registration because a legitimate labor organization is entitled to specific rights under the Labor Code,21and are involved in activities directly affecting matters of public interest. Registration requirements are intended to afford a measure of protection to unsuspecting employees who may be lured into joining unscrupulous or fly-by-night unions whose sole purpose is to control union funds or use the labor organization for illegitimate ends.22Legitimate labor organizations have exclusive rights under the law which cannot be exercised by non-legitimate unions, one of which is the right to be certified as the exclusive representative23of all the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining.24The acquisition of rights by any union or labor organization, particularly the right to file a petition for certification election, first and foremost, depends on whether or not the labor organization has attained the status of a legitimate labor organization.25A perusal of the records reveals that respondent is registered with the BLR as a "local" or "chapter" of PDMP and was issued Charter Certificate No. 112 on 15 June 1999. Hence, respondent was directly chartered by PDMP.The procedure for registration of a local or chapter of a labor organization is provided in Book V of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code, as amended by Department Order No. 9 which took effect on 21 June 1997, and again by Department Order No. 40 dated 17 February 2003. The Implementing Rules as amended by D.O. No. 9 should govern the resolution of the petition at bar since respondent's petition for certification election was filed with the BLR in 1999; and that of petitioner on 17 August 1999.26The applicable Implementing Rules enunciates a two-fold procedure for the creation of a chapter or a local. The first involves the affiliation of an independent union with a federation or national union or industry union. The second, finding application in the instant petition, involves the direct creation of a local or a chapter through the process of chartering.27A duly registered federation or national union may directly create a local or chapter by submitting to the DOLE Regional Office or to the BLR two copies of the following:(a) A charter certificate issued by the federation or national union indicating the creation or establishment of the local/chapter;(b) The names of the local/chapter's officers, their addresses, and the principal office of the local/chapter; and(c) The local/chapter's constitution and by-laws; Provided, That where the local/chapter's constitution and by-laws is the same as that of the federation or national union, this fact shall be indicated accordingly.All the foregoing supporting requirements shall be certified under oath by the Secretary or the Treasurer of the local/chapter and attested to by its President.28The Implementing Rules stipulate that a local or chapter may be directly created by afederationornational union. A duly constituted local or chapter created in accordance with the foregoing shall acquire legal personality from the date of filing of the complete documents with the BLR.29The issuance of the certificate of registration by the BLR or the DOLE Regional Office is not the operative act that vests legal personality upon a local or a chapter under Department Order No. 9. Such legal personality is acquired from the filing of the complete documentary requirements enumerated in Section 1, Rule VI.30

Petitioner insists that Section 3 of the Implementing Rules, as amended by Department Order No. 9, violated Article 234 of the Labor Code when it provided for less stringent requirements for the creation of a chapter or local. This Court disagrees.Article 234 of the Labor Code provides that anindependent labor organizationacquires legitimacy only upon its registration with the BLR:Any applicant labor organization, association or group of unions or workers shall acquire legal personality and shall be entitled to the rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations upon issuance of the certificate of registration based on the following requirements:(a) Fifty pesos (P50.00) registration fee;(b) The names of its officers, their addresses, the principal address of the labor organization, the minutes of the organizational meetings and the list of the workers who participated in such meetings;(c)The names of all its members comprising at least twenty percent (20%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate;(d) If the applicant union has been in existence for one or more years, copies of its annual financial reports; and(e) Four (4) copies of the constitution and by-laws of the applicant union, minutes of its adoption or ratification, and the list of the members who participated in it. (Italics supplied.)It is emphasized that the foregoing pertains to the registration of an independent labor organization, association or group of unions or workers.However, the creation of a branch, local or chapter is treated differently. This Court, in the landmark case ofProgressive Development Corporation v. Secretary, Department of Labor and Employment,31declared that when an unregistered union becomes a branch, local or chapter, some of the aforementioned requirements for registration are no longer necessary or compulsory. Whereas an applicant for registration of an independent union is mandated to submit, among other things, the number of employees and names of all its members comprising at least 20% of the employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate, as provided under Article 234 of the Labor Code and Section 2 of Rule III, Book V of the Implementing Rules, the same is no longer required of a branch, local or chapter.32The intent of the law in imposing less requirements in the case of a branch or local of a registered federation or national union is to encourage the affiliation of a local union with a federation or national union in order to increase the local union's bargaining powers respecting terms and conditions of labor.33Subsequently, inPagpalain Haulers, Inc. v. Trajano34where the validity of Department Order No. 9 was directly put in issue, this Court was unequivocal in finding that there is no inconsistency between the Labor Code and Department Order No. 9.As to petitioner's claims that respondent obtained its Certificate of Registration through fraud and misrepresentation, this Court finds that the imputations are not impressed with merit. In the instant case, proof to declare that respondent committed fraud and misrepresentation remains wanting. This Court had, indeed, on several occasions, pronounced that registration based on false and fraudulent statements and documents confer no legitimacy upon a labor organization irregularly recognized, which, at best, holds on to a mere scrap of paper. Under such circumstances, the labor organization, not being a legitimate labor organization, acquires no rights.35This Court emphasizes, however, that a direct challenge to the legitimacy of a labor organization based on fraud and misrepresentation in securing its certificate of registration is a serious allegation which deserves careful scrutiny. Allegations thereof should be compounded with supporting circumstances and evidence. The records of the case are devoid of such evidence. Furthermore, this Court is not a trier of facts, and this doctrine applies with greater force in labor cases. Findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, such as the BLR, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only great respect but even finality.36Still, petitioner postulates that respondent was not validly and legitimately created, for PDMP cannot create a local or chapter as it is not a legitimate labor organization, it being a trade union center.Petitioner's argument creates a predicament as it hinges on the legitimacy of PDMP as a labor organization. Firstly, this line of reasoning attempts to predicate that a trade union center is not a legitimate labor organization. In the process, the legitimacy of PDMP is being impugned, albeit indirectly. Secondly, the same contention premises that a trade union center cannot directly create a local or chapter through the process of chartering.Anent the foregoing, as has been held in a long line of cases, the legal personality of a legitimate labor organization, such as PDMP, cannot be subject to a collateral attack. The law is very clear on this matter. Article 212 (h) of the Labor Code, as amended, defines alegitimate labor organization37as "any labor organization duly registered with the DOLE, and includesany branch or local thereof."38On the other hand, a trade union center is any group of registered national unions or federations organized for the mutual aid and protection of its members; for assisting such members in collective bargaining; or for participating in the formulation of social and employment policies, standards, and programs, and is duly registered with the DOLE in accordance with Rule III, Section 2 of the Implementing Rules.39The Implementing Rules stipulate that a labor organization shall be deemed registered and vested with legal personality on the date of issuance of its certificate of registration. Once a certificate of registration is issued to a union, its legal personality cannot be subject to collateral attack.40It may be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation in accordance with Section 5 of Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules. The aforementioned provision is enunciated in the following:Sec. 5.Effect of registration. The labor organization or workers' association shall be deemed registered and vested with legal personality on the date of issuance of its certificate of registration. Such legal personality cannot thereafter be subject to collateral attack, but may be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation in accordance with these Rules.PDMP was registered as a trade union center and issued Registration Certificate No. FED-11558-LC by the BLR on 14 February 1991. Until the certificate of registration of PDMP is cancelled, its legal personality as a legitimate labor organization subsists. Once a union acquires legitimate status as a labor organization, it continues to be recognized as such until its certificate of registration is cancelled or revoked in an independent action for cancellation.41It bears to emphasize that what is being directly challenged is the personality of respondent as a legitimate labor organization and not that of PDMP. This being a collateral attack, this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain questions indirectly impugning the legitimacy of PDMP.Corollarily, PDMP is granted all the rights and privileges appurtenant to a legitimate labor organization,42and continues to be recognized as such until its certificate of registration is successfully impugned and thereafter cancelled or revoked in an independent action for cancellation.We now proceed to the contention that PDMP cannot directly create a local or a chapter, it being a trade union center.This Court reverses the finding of the appellate court and BLR on this ground, and rules that PDMP cannot directly create a local or chapter.After an exhaustive study of the governing labor law provisions, both statutory and regulatory,43we find no legal justification to support the conclusion that a trade union center is allowed to directly create a local or chapter through chartering.Apropos, we take this occasion to reiterate the first and fundamental duty of this Court, which is to apply the law. The solemn power and duty of the Court to interpret and apply the law does not include the power to correct by reading into the law what is not written therein.44Presidential Decree No. 442, better known as the Labor Code, was enacted in 1972. Being a legislation on social justice,45the provisions of the Labor Code and the Implementing Rules have been subject to several amendments, and they continue to evolve, considering that labor plays a major role as a socio-economic force. The Labor Code was first amended by Republic Act No. 6715, and recently, by Republic Act No. 9481. Incidentally, the termtrade union centerwas never mentioned under Presidential Decree No. 442, even as it was amended by Republic Act No. 6715. The termtrade union centerwas first adopted in the Implementing Rules, under Department Order No. 9.Culling from its definition as provided by Department Order No. 9, atrade union centeris any group of registered national unions or federations organized for the mutual aid and protection of its members; for assisting such members in collective bargaining; or for participating in the formulation of social and employment policies, standards, and programs, and is duly registered with the DOLE in accordance with Rule III, Section 2 of the Implementing Rules.46The same rule provides that the application for registration of an industry or trade union center shall be supported by the following:(a) The list of its member organizations and their respective presidents and, in the case of an industry union, the industry where the union seeks to operate;(b) The resolution of membership of each member organization, approved by the Board of Directors of such union;(c) The name and principal address of the applicant, the names of its officers and their addresses, the minutes of its organizational meeting/s, and the list of member organizations and their representatives who attended such meeting/s; and(d) A copy of its constitution and by-laws and minutes of its ratification by a majority of the presidents of the member organizations, provided that where the ratification was done simultaneously with the organizational meeting, it shall be sufficient that the fact of ratification be included in the minutes of the organizational meeting.47Evidently, while a "national union" or "federation" is a labor organization with at least ten locals or chapters or affiliates, each of which must be a duly certified or recognized collective bargaining agent;48a trade union center, on the other hand, is composed of a group of registered national unions or federations.49The Implementing Rules, as amended by Department Order No. 9, provide that "aduly registered federation or national union" may directly create a local or chapter. The provision reads:Section 1.Chartering and creation of a local/chapter. A duly registered federation or national union may directly create a local/chapter by submitting to the Regional Office or to the Bureau two (2) copies of the following:(a) A charter certificate issued by the federation or national union indicating the creation or establishment of the local/chapter;(b) The names of the local/chapter's officers, their addresses, and the principal office of the local/chapter; and(c) The local/chapter's constitution and by-laws; provided that where the local/chapter's constitution and by-laws is the same as that of the federation or national union, this fact shall be indicated accordingly.All the foregoing supporting requirements shall be certified under oath by the Secretary or the Treasurer of the local/chapter and attested to by its President.50Department Order No. 9 mentions two labor organizations either of which is allowed to directly create a local or chapter through chartering a duly registeredfederationor anationalunion. Department Order No. 9 defines a "chartered local" as a labor organization in the private sector operating at the enterprise level that acquired legal personality through a charter certificate, issued by a duly registeredfederation or national unionand reported to the Regional Office in accordance with Rule III, Section 2-E of these Rules.51Article 234 now includes the termtrade union center, but interestingly, the provision indicating the procedure for chartering or creating a local or chapter, namely Article 234-A, still makes no mention of a "trade union center."Also worth emphasizing is that even in the most recent amendment of the implementing rules,54there was no mention of a trade union center as being among the labor organizations allowed to charter.This Court deems it proper to apply the Latin maximexpressio unius est exclusio alterius. Under this maxim of statutory interpretation, the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. When certain persons or things are specified in a law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred. If a statute specifies one exception to a general rule or assumes to specify the effects of a certain provision, other exceptions or effects are excluded.55Where the terms are expressly limited to certain matters, it may not, by interpretation or construction, be extended to other matters.56Such is the case here. If its intent were otherwise, the law could have so easily and conveniently included "trade union centers" in identifying the labor organizations allowed to charter a chapter or local. Anything that is not included in the enumeration is excluded therefrom, and a meaning that does not appear nor is intended or reflected in the very language of the statute cannot be placed therein.57The rule is restrictive in the sense that it proceeds from the premise that the legislating body would not have made specific enumerations in a statute if it had the intention not to restrict its meaning and confine its terms to those expressly mentioned.58Expressium facit cessare tacitum.59What is expressed puts an end to what is implied.Casus omissus pro omisso habendus est. A person, object or thing omitted must have been omitted intentionally.Therefore, since under the pertinent status and applicable implementing rules, the power granted to labor organizations to directly create a chapter or local through chartering is given to a federation or national union, then a trade union center is without authority to charter directly.The ruling of this Court in the instant case is not a departure from the policy of the law to foster the free and voluntary organization of a strong and united labor movement,60and thus assure the rights of workers to self-organization.61The mandate of the Labor Code in ensuring strict compliance with the procedural requirements for registration is not without reason. It has been observed that the formation of a local or chapter becomes a handy tool for the circumvention of union registration requirements. Absent the institution of safeguards, it becomes a convenient device for a small group of employees to foist a not-so-desirable federation or union on unsuspecting co-workers and pare the need for wholehearted voluntariness, which is basic to free unionism.62As a legitimate labor organization is entitled to specific rights under the Labor Code and involved in activities directly affecting public interest, it is necessary that the law afford utmost protection to the parties affected.63However, as this Court has enunciated inProgressive Development Corporation v. Secretary of Department of Labor and Employment, it is not this Court's function to augment the requirements prescribed by law. Our only recourse, as previously discussed, is to exact strict compliance with what the law provides as requisites for local or chapter formation.64In sum, although PDMP as a trade union center is a legitimate labor organization, it has no power to directly create a local or chapter. Thus, SMPPEU-PDMP cannot be created under the more lenient requirements for chartering, but must have complied with the more stringent rules for creation and registration of an independent union, including the 20% membership requirement.

G.R. No. 177024 October 30, 2009THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA (OWNED AND OPERATED BY GRAND PLAZA HOTEL CORPORATION)Petitioner,vs.PINAG-ISANG GALING AT LAKAS NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA HERITAGE MANILA (PIGLAS-HERITAGE),Respondent.The charge that a labor organization committed fraud and misrepresentation in securing its registration is a serious charge and deserves close scrutiny. It is serious because once such charge is proved, the labor union acquires none of the rights accorded to registered organizations. Consequently, charges of this nature should be clearly established by evidence and the surrounding circumstances.27Labor laws are liberally construed in favor of labor especially if doing so would affirm its constitutionally guaranteed right to self-organization.30Here, the PIGLAS unions supporting documents reveal the unmistakable yearning of petitioner companys rank and file employees to organize. This yearning should not be frustrated by inconsequential technicalities.G.R. No. 178989 March 18, 2010EAGLE RIDGE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB,Petitioner,vs.COURT OF APPEALS and EAGLE RIDGE EMPLOYEES UNION (EREU),Respondents.

InEastland Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Noriel,52the Court emphasized, and reiterated its earlier rulings,53that "even if there were less than 30% [the required percentage of minimum membership then] of the employees asking for a certification election, that of itself would not be a bar to respondent Director ordering such an election provided, of course, there is no grave abuse of discretion."54CitingPhilippine Association of Free Labor Unions v. Bureau of Labor Relations,55the Court emphasized that a certification election is the most appropriate procedure for the desired goal of ascertaining which of the competing organizations should represent the employees for the purpose of collective bargaining.56Indeed, where the company seeks the cancellation of a unions registration during the pendency of a petition for certification election, the same grounds invoked to cancel should not be used to bar the certification election. A certification election is the most expeditious and fairest mode of ascertaining the will of a collective bargaining unit as to its choice of its exclusive representative.57It is the fairest and most effective way of determining which labor organization can truly represent the working force. It is a fundamental postulate that the will of the majority, if given expression in an honest election with freedom on the part of the voters to make their choice, is controlling.58

G.R. No. 169717 March 16, 2011SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA CHARTER CHEMICAL SOLIDARITY OF UNIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES FOR EMPOWERMENT AND REFORMS (SMCC-SUPER), ZACARRIAS JERRY VICTORIO-Union President,Petitioner,vs.CHARTER CHEMICAL and COATING CORPORATION,Respondent.

The petition is meritorious.The issue as to the legal personality of petitioner union is not barred by the July 16, 1999 Decision of the DOLE.A review of the records indicates that the issue as to petitioner unions legal personality has been timely and consistently raised by respondent company before the Med-Arbiter, DOLE, CA and now this Court. In its July 16, 1999 Decision, the DOLE found that petitioner union complied with the documentation requirements of the Labor Code and that the evidence was insufficient to establish that there was an illegal mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file employees in its membership. Nonetheless, the petition for certification election was dismissed on the ground that another union had previously filed a petition for certification election seeking to represent the same bargaining unit in respondent company.Upon motion for reconsideration by petitioner union on January 13, 2000, the DOLE reversed its previous ruling. It upheld the right of petitioner union to file the subject petition for certification election because its previous decision was based on a mistaken appreciation of facts.15From this adverse decision, respondent company timely moved for reconsideration by reiterating its previous arguments before the Med-Arbiter that petitioner union has no legal personality to file the subject petition for certification election.The July 16, 1999 Decision of the DOLE, therefore, never attained finality because the parties timely moved for reconsideration. The issue then as to the legal personality of petitioner union to file the certification election was properly raised before the DOLE, the appellate court and now this Court.The charter certificate need not be certified under oath by the local unions secretary or treasurer and attested to by its president.Preliminarily, we must note that Congress enacted Republic Act (R.A.) No. 948116which took effect on June 14, 2007.17This law introduced substantial amendments to the Labor Code. However, since the operative facts in this case occurred in 1999, we shall decide the issues under the pertinent legal provisions then in force (i.e., R.A. No. 6715,18amending Book V of the Labor Code, and the rules and regulations19implementing R.A. No. 6715, as amended by D.O. No. 9,20series of 1997) pursuant to our ruling inRepublic v. Kawashima Textile Mfg., Philippines, Inc.21In the main, the CA ruled that petitioner union failed to comply with the requisite documents for registration under Article 235 of the Labor Code and its implementing rules. It agreed with the Med-Arbiter that 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. Thus, petitioner union cannot be accorded the status of a legitimate labor organization.We disagree.The then prevailing Section 1, Rule VI of the Implementing Rules of Book V, as amended by D.O. No. 9, series of 1997, provides:Section 1.Chartering and creation of a local chapter A duly registered federation or national union may directly create a local/chapter by submitting to the Regional Office or to the Bureau two (2) copies of the following:(a) A charter certificate issued by the federation or national union indicating the creation or establishment of the local/chapter;(b) The names of the local/chapters officers, their addresses, and the principal office of the local/chapter; and(c) The local/chapters constitution and by-laws provided that where the local/chapters constitution and by-laws [are] the same as [those] of the federation or national union, this fact shall be indicated accordingly.All the foregoing supporting requirements shall be certified under oath by the Secretary or the Treasurer of the local/chapter and attested to by its President.As readily seen, the Sama-samang Pahayag ng Pagsapi at Authorization and Listahan ng mga Dumalo sa Pangkalahatang Pulong at mga Sumang-ayon at Nagratipika sa Saligang Batas are not among the documents that need to be submitted to the Regional Office or Bureau of Labor Relations in order to register a labor organization. As to the charter certificate, the above-quoted rule indicates that it should be executed under oath. Petitioner union concedes and the records confirm that its charter certificate was not executed under oath. However, inSan Miguel Corporation (Mandaue Packaging Products Plants) v. Mandaue Packing Products Plants-San Miguel Corporation Monthlies Rank-and-File Union-FFW (MPPP-SMPP-SMAMRFU-FFW),22which was decided under the auspices of D.O. No. 9, Series of 1997, we ruled InSan Miguel Foods-Cebu B-Meg Feed Plant v. Hon. Laguesma, 331 Phil. 356 (1996), the Court ruled that it wasnot necessaryfor the charter certificate to be certified and attested by the local/chapter officers.Id.While this ruling was based on the interpretation of the previous Implementing Rules provisions which were supplanted by the 1997 amendments, we believe thatthe same doctrine obtains in this case. Considering that the charter certificate is prepared and issued by the national union and not the local/chapter,it does not make sense to have the local/chapters officersx x xcertify or attest to a document which they had no hand in the preparation of.23(Emphasis supplied)In accordance with this ruling, petitioner unions charter certificate need not be executed under oath. Consequently, it validly acquired the status of a legitimate labor organization upon submission of (1) its charter certificate,24(2) the names of its officers, their addresses, and its principal office,25and (3) its constitution and by-laws26 the last two requirements having been executed under oath by the proper union officials as borne out by the records.The mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory employees in petitioner union does not nullify its legal personality as a legitimate labor organization.The CA found that petitioner union has for its membership both rank-and-file and supervisory employees. However, petitioner union sought to represent the bargaining unit consisting of rank-and-file employees. Under Article 24527of the Labor Code, supervisory employees are not eligible for membership in a labor organization of rank-and-file employees. Thus, the appellate court ruled that petitioner union cannot be considered a legitimate labor organization pursuant toToyota Motor Philippines v. Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Labor Union28(hereinafterToyota).Preliminarily, we note that petitioner union questions the factual findings of the Med-Arbiter, as upheld by the appellate court, that 12 of its members, consisting of batchman, mill operator and leadman, are supervisory employees. However, petitioner union failed to present any rebuttal evidence in the proceedings below after respondent company submitted in evidence the job descriptions29of the aforesaid employees. The job descriptions indicate that the aforesaid employees exercise recommendatory managerial actions which are not merely routinary but require the use of independent judgment, hence, falling within the definition of supervisory employees under Article 212(m)30of the Labor Code. For this reason, we are constrained to agree with the Med-Arbiter, as upheld by the appellate court, that petitioner union consisted of both rank-and-file and supervisory employees.Nonetheless, the inclusion of the aforesaid supervisory employees in petitioner union does not divest it of its status as a legitimate labor organization. The appellate courts reliance onToyotais misplaced in view of this Courts subsequent ruling inRepublic v. Kawashima Textile Mfg., Philippines, Inc.31(hereinafterKawashima). InKawashima, we explained at length how and why theToyotadoctrine no longer holds sway under the altered state of the law and rules applicable to this case,viz: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.It was the Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. No. 6715 (1989 Amended Omnibus Rules) which supplied the deficiency by introducing the following amendment to Rule II (Registration of Unions):"Sec. 1.Who may join unions.- x x xSupervisory 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 x x x. (Emphasis supplied) and Rule V (Representation Cases and Internal-Union Conflicts) of the Omnibus Rules,viz:"Sec. 1.Where to file. - A petition for certification election may be filed with the Regional Office which has jurisdiction over the principal office of the employer. The petition shall be in writing and under oath.Sec. 2.Who may file. - Any legitimate labor organization or the employer, when requested to bargain collectively, may file the petition.The petition, when filed by a legitimate labor organization, shall contain, among others:x x x x(c) description of the bargaining unit which shall be the employer unit unless circumstances otherwise require; and provided further, that the appropriate bargaining unit of the rank-and-file employees shall not include supervisory employees and/or security guards.(Emphasis supplied)By that provision, any questioned mingling will prevent an otherwise legitimate and duly registered labor organization from exercising its right to file a petition for certification election.Thus, when the issue of the effect of mingling was brought to the fore inToyota,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.x x x xIn 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." (Emphasis supplied)InDunlop, in which the labor organization that filed a petition for certification election was one for supervisory employees, but in which the membership included rank-and-file employees, the Court reiterated that such labor organization had no legal right to file a certification election to represent a bargaining unit composed of supervisors for as long as it counted rank-and-file employees among its members.It should be emphasized that the petitions for certification election involved inToyotaandDunlopwere filed on November 26, 1992 and September 15, 1995, respectively; hence, the 1989 Rules was applied in both cases.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. Instead, what the 1997 Amended Omnibus Rules requires is a plain description of the bargaining unit, thus:Rule XICertification Electionsx x x xSec. 4.Forms and contents of petition. - The petition shall be in writing and under oath and shall contain, among others, the following: x x x (c) The description of the bargaining unit.InPagpalain Haulers, Inc. v. Trajano,the Court had occasion to uphold the validity of the 1997 Amended Omnibus Rules, although the specific provision involved therein was only Sec. 1, Rule VI, to wit:"Section. 1.Chartering and creation of a local/chapter.- A duly registered federation or national union may directly create a local/chapter by submitting to the Regional Office or to the Bureau two (2) copies of the following: a) a charter certificate issued by the federation or national union indicating the creation or establishment of the local/chapter; (b) the names of the local/chapter's officers, their addresses, and the principal office of the local/chapter; and (c) the local/ chapter's constitution and by-laws; provided that where the local/chapter's constitution and by-laws is the same as that of the federation or national union, this fact shall be indicated accordingly.All the foregoing supporting requirements shall be certified under oath by the Secretary or the Treasurer of the local/chapter and attested to by its President."which does not require that, for its creation and registration, a local or chapter submit a list of its members.Then cameTagaytay Highlands Int'l. Golf Club, Inc. v. Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union-PGTWOin which the core issue was whether mingling affects the legitimacy of a labor organization and its right to file a petition for certification election. This time, given the altered legal milieu, the Court abandoned the view inToyotaandDunlopand reverted to its pronouncement inLopezthat 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. Thus, 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.InSan Miguel Corp. (Mandaue Packaging Products Plants) v. Mandaue Packing Products Plants-San Miguel Packaging Products-San Miguel Corp. Monthlies Rank-and-File Union-FFW,the Court explained that since the 1997 Amended Omnibus Rules does not require a local or chapter to provide a list of its members, it would be improper for the DOLE to deny recognition to said local or chapter on account of any question pertaining to its individual members.More to the point isAir Philippines Corporation v. Bureau of Labor Relations,which involved a petition for cancellation of union registration filed by the employer in 1999 against a rank-and-file labor organization on the ground of mixed membership: the Court therein reiterated its ruling inTagaytay Highlandsthat the inclusion in a union of disqualified employees is not among the grounds for cancellation, unless such inclusion is due to misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under the circumstances enumerated in Sections (a) and (c) of Article 239 of the Labor Code.All said, while the latest issuance is R.A. No. 9481,the 1997 Amended Omnibus Rules, as interpreted by the Court inTagaytay Highlands,San MiguelandAir Philippines,had already set the tone for it.ToyotaandDunlopno longer hold swayin the present altered state of the law and the rules.32[Underline supplied]The applicable law and rules in the instant case are the same as those inKawashimabecause the present petition for certification election was filed in 1999 when D.O. No. 9, series of 1997, was still in effect. Hence,Kawashimaapplies with equal force here. 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.The legal personality of petitioner union cannot be collaterally attacked by respondent company in the certification election proceedings.Petitioner union correctly argues that its legal personality cannot be collaterally attacked in the certification election proceedings. As we explained inKawashima: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.33WHEREFORE, the petition isGRANTED. The March 15, 2005 Decision and September 16, 2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 58203 areREVERSEDandSET ASIDE. The January 13, 2000 Decision of the Department of Labor and Employment in OS-A-6-53-99 (NCR-OD-M-9902-019) isREINSTATED.

G.R. No. 163532 March 10, 2010YOKOHAMA TIRE PHILIPPINES, INC.,Petitioner,vs.YOKOHAMA EMPLOYEES UNION,Respondent.

The cancellation of union registration at the employers instance, while permitted, must be approached with caution and strict scrutiny in order that the right to belong to a legitimate labor organization and to enjoy the privileges appurtenant to such membership will not be denied to the employees. As the applicant for cancellation, the petitioner naturally had the burden to present proof sufficient to warrant the cancellation. The petitioner was thus expected to satisfactorily establish that YEU committed misrepresentations, false statements or fraud in connection with the election of its officers, or with the minutes of the election of officers, or in the list of votes, as expressly required in Art. 239, (c),Labor Code. But, as the respondent BLR Director has found and determined, and We fully agree with him, the petitioner simply failed to discharge its burden.20

G.R. No. 164561 August 30, 2006CATHAY PACIFIC STEEL CORPORATION, BENJAMIN CHUA JR., VIRGILIO AGERO, and LEONARDO VISORRO, JR.,Petitioners,vs.HON. COURT OF APPEALS, CAPASCO UNION OF SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES (CUSE) and ENRIQUE TAMONDONG III,Respondents.

Accordingly, Article 212(m) of the Labor Code, as amended, differentiates supervisory employees from managerial employees, to wit: 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; whereas, managerial employees are those who are vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees. Thus, from the foregoing provision of the Labor Code, it can be clearly inferred that private respondent Tamondong was just a supervisory employee. Private respondent Tamondong did not perform any of the functions of a managerial employee as stated in the definition given to it by the Code. Hence, the Labor Code33provisions regarding disqualification of a managerial employee from joining, assisting or forming any labor organization does not apply to herein private respondent Tamondong. Being a supervisory employee of CAPASCO, he cannot be prohibited from joining or participating in the union activities of private respondent CUSE, and in making such a conclusion, the Court of Appeals did not act whimsically, capriciously or in a despotic manner, rather, it was guided by the evidence submitted before it. Thus, given the foregoing findings of the Court of Appeals that private respondent is a supervisory employee, it is indeed an unfair labor practice34on the part of petitioner CAPASCO to dismiss him on account of his union activities, thereby curtailing his constitutionally guaranteed right to self-organization.35

G.R. No. 110399 August 15, 1997SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION SUPERVISORS AND EXEMPT UNION AND ERNESTO L. PONCE, President,petitioners,vs.HONORABLE BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA IN HIS CAPACITY AS UNDERSECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, HONORABLE DANILO L. REYNANTE IN HIS CAPACITY AS MED-ARBITER AND SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION,respondents.

For resolution in this case are the following issues:1. Whether Supervisory employees 3 and 4 and the exempt employees of the company are considered confidential employees, hence ineligible from joining a union.2. If they are not confidential employees, do the employees of the three plants constitute an appropriate single bargaining unit.On the first issue, this Court rules that said employees do not fall within the term "confidential employees" who may be prohibited from joining a union.There is no question that the said employees, supervisors and the exempt employees, are not vested with the powers and prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, layoff, recall, discharge or dismiss employees. They are, therefore, not qualified to be classified as managerial employees who, under Article 2454of the Labor Code, are not eligible to join, assist or form any labor organization. In the very same provision, they are not allowed membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employeesbutmay join, assist or form separate labor organizations of their own. The only question that need be addressed is whether these employees are properly classified as confidential employees or not.Confidential employees are those who (1) assist or act in a confidential capacity, (2) to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies in the field of labor relations.5The two criteria are cumulative, and both must be met if an employee is to be considered a confidential employee that is, the confidential relationship must exist between the employee and his supervisor, and the supervisor must handle the prescribed responsibilities relating tolabor relations.6The exclusion from bargaining units of employees who, in the normal course of their duties, become aware of management policies relating to labor relations is a principal objective sought to be accomplished by the ''confidential employee rule."The broad rationale behind this rule is that employees should not be placed in a position involving a potential conflict of interests.7"Management should not be required to handle labor relations matters through employees who are represented by the union with which the company is required to deal and who in the normal performance of their duties may obtain advance information of the company's position with regard to contract negotiations, the disposition of grievances, or other labor relations matters."8An important element of the "confidential employee rule" is the employee's need to use labor relations information. Thus, in determining the confidentiality of certain employees, a key question frequently considered is the employee's necessary access to confidential labor relations information.13It is the contention of respondent corporation that Supervisor employees 3 and 4 and the exempt employees come within the meaning of the term "confidential employees" primarily because they answered in the affirmative when asked "Do you handle confidential data or documents?" in the Position Questionnaires submitted by the Union.14In the same questionnaire, however, it was also stated that the confidential information handled by questioned employees relate to product formulation, product standards and product specification which by no means relate to "labor relations."15Granting arguendo that an employee has access to confidential labor relations information but such is merely incidental to his duties and knowledge thereof is not necessary in the performance of such duties, said access does not render the employee a confidential employee.16"If access to confidential labor relations information is to be a factor in the determination of an employee's confidential status, such information must relate to the employer's labor relations policies. Thus, an employee of a labor union, or of a management association, must have access to confidential labor relations information with respect to his employer, the union, or the association, to be regarded a confidential employee, and knowledge of labor relations information pertaining to the companies with which the union deals, or which the association represents, will not cause an employee to be excluded from the bargaining unit representing employees of the union or association."17"Access to information which is regarded by the employer to be confidential from the business standpoint, such as financial information18or technical trade secrets, will not render an employee a confidential employee."19Herein listed are the functions of supervisors 3 and higher:1. To undertake decisions to discontinue/temporarily stop shift operations when situations require.2. To effectively oversee the quality control function at the processing lines in the storage of chicken and other products.3. To administer efficient system of evaluation of products in the outlets.4. To be directly responsible for the recall, holding and rejection of direct manufacturing materials.5. To recommend and initiate actions in the maintenance of sanitation and hygiene throughout the plant.20It is evident that whatever confidential data the questioned employees may handle will have to relate to their functions. From the foregoing functions, it can be gleaned that the confidential information said employees have access to concern the employer's internal business operations. As held inWestinghouse Electric Corporation v.National Labor Relations Board,21"an employee may not be excluded from appropriate bargaining unit merely because he has access to confidential information concerning employer's internal business operations and which is not related to the field of labor relations."It must be borne in mind that Section 3 of Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution mandates the State to guarantee to "all" workers the right to self-organization. Hence, confidential employees who may be excluded from bargaining unit must be strictly defined so as not to needlessly deprive many employees of their right to bargain collectively through representatives of their choosing.22In the case at bar, supervisors 3 and above may not be considered confidential employees merely because they handle "confidential data" as such must first be strictly classified as pertaining to labor relations for them to fall under said restrictions. The information they handle are properly classifiable as technical and internal business operations data which, to our mind, has no relevance to negotiations and settlement of grievances wherein the interests of a union and the management are invariably adversarial. Since the employees are not classifiable under the confidential type, this Court rules that they may appropriately form a bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining. Furthermore, even assuming that they are confidential employees, jurisprudence has established that there is no legal prohibition against confidential employees who are not performing managerial functions to form and join a union.23An appropriate bargaining unit may be defined as "a group of employees of a given employer, comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees, which the collective interest of all the employees, consistent with equity to the employer, indicate to be best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of thelaw."24A 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.25It is readily seen that the employees in the instant case have "community or mutuality of interests," which is the standard in determining the proper constituency of a collective bargaining unit.26It is undisputed that they all belong to the Magnolia Poultry Division of San Miguel Corporation. This means that, although they belong to three different plants, they perform work of the same nature, receive the same wages and compensation, and most importantly, share a common stake in concerted activities.G.R. No. 161933 April 22, 2008STANDARD CHARTERED BANK EMPLOYEES UNION (SCBEU-NUBE),petitioner,vs.STANDARD CHARTERED BANK and ANNEMARIE DURBIN, in her capacity as Chief Executive Officer, Philippines, Standard Chartered Bank,respondents.

he disqualification of managerial and confidential employees from joining a bargaining unit for rank and file employees is already well-entrenched in jurisprudence. While Article 245 of the Labor Code limits the ineligibility to join, form and assist any labor organization to managerial employees, jurisprudence has extended this prohibition to confidential employees or those who by reason of their positions or nature of work are required to assist or act in a fiduciary manner to managerial employees and hence, are likewise privy to sensitive and highly confidential records.15In this case, the question that needs to be answered is whether the Bank's Chief Cashiers and Assistant Cashiers, personnel of the Telex Department and HR staff are confidential employees, such that they should be excluded.As regards the qualification ofbank cashiersas confidential employees,National Association of Trade Unions (NATU) Republic Planters Bank Supervisors Chapter v. Torres16declared that they are confidential employees having control, custody and/or access to confidential matters,e.g., the branch's cash position, statements of financial condition, vault combination, cash codes for telegraphic transfers, demand drafts and other negotiable instruments, pursuant to Sec. 1166.4 of the Central Bank Manual regarding joint custody, and therefore, disqualified from joining or assisting a union; or joining, assisting or forming any other labor organization.17Golden Farms, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja18meanwhile stated that "confidential employees such as accounting personnel,radio and telegraph operatorswho, having access to confidential information, may become the source of undue advantage. Said employee(s) may act as spy or spies of either party to a collective bargaining agreement."19Finally, inPhilips Industrial Development, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,20the Court designatedpersonnel staff, in which human resources staff may be qualified, as confidential employees because by the very nature of their functions, they assist and act in a confidential capacity to, or have access to confidential matters of, persons who exercise managerial functions in the field of labor relations.G.R. No. 157117 November 20, 2006COASTAL SUBIC BAY TERMINAL, INC.,Petitioner,vs.DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and EMPLOYMENT OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, COASTAL SUBIC BAY TERMINAL, INC. SUPERVISORY UNION-APSOTEU, and COASTAL SUBIC BAY TERMINAL, INC. RANK-AND-FILE UNION-ALU-TUCP,Respondents.Pertinent is Article 23514of the Labor Code which provides that applications for registration shall be acted upon by the Bureau. "Bureau" as defined under the Labor Code means the BLRand/orthe Labor Relations Division in the Regional Offices of the Department of Labor.15Further, Section 2, Rule II, Book V of the 1989 Revised Implementing Rules of the Labor Code (Implementing Rules) provides that:Section 2.Where to file application; procedure Any national labor organization or labor federation or local union may file an application for registration with the Bureau or the Regional Office where the applicants principal offices is located. The Bureau or the Regional Office shall immediately process and approve or deny the application. In case of approval, the Bureau or the Regional Office shall issue the registration certificate within thirty (30) calendar days from receipt of the application, together with all the requirements for registration as hereinafter provided.16The Implementing Rules specifically Section 1, Rule III of Book V, as amended by Department Order No. 9, thus:SECTION 1.Where to file applications. The application for registration of any federation, national or industry union or trade union center shall be filed with the Bureau. Where the application is filed with the Regional Office, the same shall be immediately forwarded to the Bureau within forty-eight (48) hours from filing thereof, together with all the documents supporting the registration.The applications for registration of an independent union shall be filed with and acted upon by the Regional Office where the applicants principal office is located .x x x xThe DOLE issued Department Order No. 40-03, which took effect on March 15, 2003, further amending Book V of the above implementing rules. The new implementing rules explicitly provide that applications for registration of labor organizations shall be filed either with the Regional Office or with the BLR.17Even after the amendments, the rules did not divest the Regional Office and the BLR of their jurisdiction over applications for registration by labor organizations. The amendments to the implementing rules merely specified that when the application was filed with the Regional Office, the application would be acted upon by the BLR.The records in this case showed that APSOTEU was registered on March 1, 1991. Accordingly, the law applicable at that time was Section 2, Rule II, Book V of the Implementing Rules, and not Department Order No. 9 which took effect only on June 21, 1997. Thus, considering further that APSOTEUs principal office is located in Diliman, Quezon City, and its registration was filed with the NCR Regional Office, the certificate of registration is valid.First, as earlier discoursed, once a labor union attains the status of a legitimate labor organization, it continues as such until its certificate of registration is cancelled or revoked in an independent action for cancellation.23In addition, the legal personality of a labor organization cannot be collaterally attacked.24Thus, when the personality of the labor organization is questioned in the same manner the veil of corporate fiction is pierced, the action partakes the nature of a collateral attack. Hence, in the absence of any independent action for cancellation of registration against either APSOTEU or ALU, and unless and until their registrations are cancelled, each continues to possess a separate legal personality. The CSBTI-RFU and CSBTI-SU are therefore affiliated with distinct and separate federations, despite the commonalities of APSOTEU and ALU.Under the rules implementing the Labor Code, a chartered local union acquires legal personality through the charter certificate issued by a duly registered federation or national union, and reported to the Regional Office in accordance with the rules implementing the Labor Code.25A local union does not owe its existence to the federation with which it is affiliated. It is a separate and distinct voluntary association owing its creation to the will of its members. Mere affiliation does not divest the local union of its own personality, neither does it give the mother federation the license to act independently of the local union. It only gives rise to a contract of agency, where the former acts in representation of the latter.26Hence, local unions are considered principals while the federation is deemed to be merely their agent.27As such principals, the unions are entitled to exercise the rights and privileges of a legitimate labor organization, including the right to seek certification as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent in the appropriate employer unit.1wphi1A word of caution though, under Article 245 of the Labor Code,28supervisory employees are not eligible for membership in a labor union of rank-and-file employees. The supervisory employees are allowed to form their own union but they are not allowed to join the rank-and-file union because of potential conflicts of interest.29Further, to avoid a situation where supervisors would merge with the rank-and-file or where the supervisors labor union would represent conflicting interests, a local supervisors union should not be allowed to affiliate with the national federation of unions of rank-and-file employees where that federation actively participates in the union activity within the company.30Thus, the limitation is not confined to a case of supervisors wanting to join a rank-and-file union. The prohibition extends to a supervisors local union applying for membership in a national federation the members of which include local unions of rank-and-file employees.31InDe La Salle University Medical Center and College of Medicine v. Laguesma,we reiterated the rule that for the prohibition to apply, it is not enough that the supervisory union and the rank-and-file union are affiliated with a single federation. In addition, the supervisors must have direct authority over the rank-and-file employees.32The purpose of affiliation of the local unions into a common enterprise is to increase the collective bargaining power in respect of the terms and conditions of labor.33When there is commingling of officers of a rank-and-file union with a supervisory union, the constitutional policy on labor is circumvented. Labor organizations should ensure the freedom of employees to organize themselves for the purpose of leveling the bargaining process but also to ensure the freedom of workingmen and to keep open the corridor of opportunity to enable them to do it for themselves.

G.R. No. 162025 August 3, 2010TUNAY NA PAGKAKAISA NG MANGGAGAWA SA ASIA BREWERY,Petitioner,vs.ASIA BREWERY, INC.,Respondent.

Although Article 245 of theLabor Codelimits the ineligibility to join, form and assist any labor organization to managerial employees, jurisprudence has extended this prohibition to confidential employees or those who by reason of their positions or nature of work are required to assist or act in a fiduciary manner to managerial employees and hence, are likewise privy to sensitive and highly confidential records.14Confidential employees are thus excluded from the rank-and-file bargaining unit. The rationale for their separate category and disqualification to join any labor organization is similar to the inhibition for managerial employees because if allowed to be affiliated with a Union, the latter might not be assured of their loyalty in view of evident conflict of interests and the Union can also become company-denominated with the presence of managerial employees in the Union membership.15Having access to confidential information, confidential employees may also become the source of undue advantage. Said employees may act as a spy or spies of either party to a collective bargaining agreement.16Confidential employees are defined as those who (1) assist or act in a confidential capacity, (2) to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies in the field of labor relations. The two (2) criteria are cumulative, and both must be met if an employee is to be considered a confidential employee that is, the confidential relationship must exist between the employee and his supervisor, and the supervisor must handle the prescribed responsibilities relating to labor relations. The exclusion from bargaining units of employees who, in the normal course of their duties, become aware of management policies relating to labor relations is a principal objective sought to be accomplished by the "confidential employee rule."26There is no showing in this case that the secretaries/clerks and checkers assisted or acted in a confidential capacity to managerial employees and obtained confidential information relating to labor relations policies. And even assuming that they had exposure to internal business operations of the company, respondent claimed, this is not per se ground for their exclusion in the bargaining unit of the daily-paid rank-and-file employees.27Unfair labor practice refers to "acts that violate the workers right to organize." The prohibited acts are related to the workers right to self organization and to the observance of a CBA. For a charge of unfair labor practice to prosper, it must be shown that ABI was motivated by ill will, "bad faith, or fraud, or was oppressive to labor, or done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy, and, of course, that social humiliation, wounded feelings or grave anxiety resulted x x x"28from ABIs act in discontinuing the union dues deduction from those employees it believed were excluded by the CBA. Considering that the herein dispute arose from a simple disagreement in the interpretation of the CBA provision on excluded employees from the bargaining unit, respondent cannot be said to have committed unfair labor practice that restrained its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, nor have thereby demonstrated an anti-union stance.

G.R. No. 146206 August 1, 2011SAN MIGUEL FOODS, INCORPORATED,Petitioner,vs.SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION SUPERVISORS and EXEMPT UNION,Respondent.

An appropriate bargaining unit is defined as a group of employees of a given employer, comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees, which the collective interest of all the employees, consistent with equity to the employer, indicate to be best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the law.21

Confidential employees are defined as those who (1) assist or act in a confidential capacity, in regard (2) to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies in the field of labor relations.26The two criteria are cumulative, and both must be met if an employee is to be considered a confidential employee - that is, the confidential relationship must exist between the employee and his supervisor, and the supervisor must handle the prescribed responsibilities relating to labor relations. The exclusion from bargaining units of employees who, in the normal course of their duties, become aware of management policies relating to labor relations is a principal objective sought to be accomplished by the "confidential employee rule."27A confidential employee is one entrusted with confidence on delicate, or with the custody, handling or care and protection of the employers property.28Confidential employees, such as accounting personnel, should be excluded from the bargaining unit, as their access to confidential information may become the source of undue advantage.29However, such fact does not apply to the position of Payroll Master and the whole gamut of employees who, as perceived by petitioner, has access to salary and compensation data. The CA correctly held that the position of Payroll Master does not involve dealing with confidential labor relations information in the course of the performance of his functions. Since the nature of his work does not pertain to company rules and regulations and confidential labor relations, it follows that he cannot be excluded from the subject bargaining unit.Corollarily, although Article 24530of the Labor Code limits the ineligibility to join, form and assist any labor organization to managerial employees, jurisprudence has extended this prohibition toconfidential employees or those who by reason of their positions or nature of work are required to assist or act in a fiduciary manner to managerial employees and, hence, are likewise privy to sensitive and highly confidential records.31Confidential employees are thus excluded from the rank-and-file bargaining unit. The rationale for their separate category and disqualification to join any labor organization is similar to the inhibition for managerial employees, because if allowed to be affiliated with a union, the latter might not be assured of their loyalty in view of evident conflict of interests and the union can also become company-denominated with the presence of managerial employees in the union membership.32Having access to confidential information, confidential employees may also become the source of undue advantage. Said employees may act as a spy or spies of either party to a collective bargaining agreement.331avvphi1It bears stressing that a certification election is the sole concern of the workers; hence, an employer lacks the personality to dispute the same. The general rule is that an employer has no standing to question the process of certification election, since this is the sole concern of the workers.37Law and policy demand that employers take a strict, hands-off stance in certification elections. The bargaining representative of employees should be chosen free from any extraneous influence of management. A labor bargaining representative, to be effective, must owe its loyalty to the employees alone and to no other.38The only exception is where the employer itself has to file the petition pursuant to Article 25839of the Labor Code because of a request to bargain collectively.40

G.R. No. 96566 January 6, 1992ATLAS LITHOGRAPHIC SERVICES, INC.,petitioner,vs.UNDERSECRETARY BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA (Department of Labor and Employment) and ATLAS LITHOGRAPHIC SERVICES, INC. SUPERVISORY, ADMINISTRATIVE, PERSONNEL, PRODUCTION, ACCOUNTING AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-KAISAHAN NG MANGGAWANG PILIPINO (KAMPIL-KATIPUNAN),respondents.

The sole issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not, under Article 245 of the Labor Code, a local union of supervisory employees may be allowed to affiliate with a national federation of labor organizations of rank-and-file employees and which national federation actively represents its affiliates in collective bargaining negotiations with the same employer of the supervisors and in the implementation of resulting collective bargaining agreements.The petitioner argues that KAMPIL-KATIPUNAN already represents its rank-and-file employees and, therefore, to allow the supervisors of those employees to affiliate with the private respondent is tantamount to allowing the circumvention of the principle of the separation of unions under Article 245 of the Labor Code.It further argues that the intent of the law is to prevent a single labor organization from representing different classes of employees with conflicting interests.The public respondent, on the other hand, contends that despite affiliation with a national federation, the local union does not lose its personality which is separate, and distinct from the national federation. It cites as its legal basis the case ofAdamson & Adamson, Inc.v.CIR(127 SCRA 268 [1984]).It maintains that Rep. Act No. 6715 contemplates the principle laid down by this Court in theAdamsoncase interpreting Section 3 of Rep. Act No. 875 (the Industrial Peace Act) on the right of a supervisor's union to affiliate. The private respondent asserts that the legislature must have noted theAdamsonruling then prevailing when it conceived the reinstatement in the present Labor Code of a similar provision on the right of supervisors to organize.Under the Industrial Peace Act of 1953, employees were classified into three groups, namely: (1) managerial employees; (2) supervisors; and (3) rank-and file employees. Supervisors, who were considered employees in relation to their employer could join a union but not a union of rank-and-file employees.With the enactment in 1974 of the Labor Code (Pres Decree No. 442), employees were classified into managerial and rank-and-file employees. Neither the category of supervisors nor their right to organize under the old statute were recognized. So that, inBulletin Publishing Corporation v.Sanchez(144 SCRA 628 [1986]), the Court interpreted the superseding labor law to have removed from supervisors the right to unionize among themselves. The Court ruled:In the light of the factual background of this case, We are constrained to hold that the supervisory employees of petitioner firm may not, under the law, form a supervisors union, separate and distinct from the existing bargaining unit (BEU), composed of the rank-and-file employees of the Bulletin Publishing Corporation. It is evident that most of the private respondents are considered managerial employees. Also, it is distinctly stated in Section 11, Rule II, of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, that supervisory unions are presently no longer recognized nor allowed to exist and operate as such. (pp. 633, 634)In Section 11, Rule II, Book V of the Omnibus Rules implementing Pres. Decree No. 442, the supervisory unions existing since the effectivity of the New Code in January 1, 1975 ceased to operate as such and the members who did not qualify as managerial employees under this definition in Article 212 (k) therein became eligible to form, to join or assist a rank-and-file union.A revision of the Labor Code undertaken by the bicameral Congress brought about the enactment of Rep. Act No. 6715 in March 1989 in which employees were reclassified into three groups, namely: (1) the managerial employees; (2) supervisors; and (3) the rank and file employees. Under the present law, the category of supervisory employees is once again recognized. Hence, Art. 212 (m) states:(m) . . . 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. . . .The rationale for the amendment is the government's recognition of the right of supervisors to organize with the qualification that they shall not join or assist in the organization of rank-and-file employees. The reason behind the Industrial Peace Act provision on the same subject matter has been adopted in the present statute. The interests of supervisors on the one hand, and the rank-and-file employees on the other, are separate and distinct. The functions of supervisors, beingrecommendatoryin nature, are more identified with the interests of the employer. The performance of those functions may, thus, run counter to the interests of the rank-and-file.This intent of the law is made clear in the deliberations of the legislators on then Senate Bill 530 now enacted as Rep. Act No. 6715.The definition of managerial employees was limited to those having authority to hire and fire while those who only recommend effectively the hiring or firing or transfers of personnel would be considered as closer to rank-and-file employees. The exclusion, therefore, of middle level executives from the category of managers brought about a third classification, the supervisory employees. These supervisory employees are allowed to form their own union but they are not allowed to join the rank-and-file union because of conflict of interest (Journal of the Senate, First Regular Session, 1987, 1988, Volume 3,p. 2245).In terms of classification, however, while they are more closely identified with the rank-and-file they are still not allowed to join the union of rank-and-file employees. To quote the Senate Journal:In reply to Sen. Guingona's query whether "supervisors" are included in the term "employee", Sen. Herrera stated that while they are considered as rank-and-file employees, they cannot join the union and they would have to form their own supervisors' union pursuant to Rep. Act 875. (supra,p. 2288)The peculiar role of supervisors is such that while they are not managers, when they recommend action implementing management policy or ask for the discipline or dismissal of subordinates, they identify with the interests of the employer and may act contrary to the interests of the rank-and-file.We agree with the petitioner's contention that a conflict of interest may arise in the areas of discipline, collective bargaining and strikes.Members of the supervisory union might refuse to carry out disciplinary measures against their co-member rank-and-file employees.In the area of bargaining, their interests cannot be considered identical. The needs of one are different from those of the other. Moreover, in the event of a strike, the national federation might influence the supervisors' union to conduct a sympathy strike on the sole basis of affiliation.More important, the factual issues in theAdamsoncase are different from the present case. First, the rank-and-file employees in theAdamsoncase are not directly under the supervisors who comprise the supervisors' union. In the case at bar, the rank-and file employees are directly under the supervisors organized by one and the same federation.The contemplation of the law in Sec. 3 of the Industrial Peace Act is to prohibit supervisors from joining a labor organization of employees under their supervision. Sec. 3 of the Industrial Peace Act provides:Sec. 3 Employees' Right to Self Organization. Employees shall have the right to self-organization and to form, join or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or protection. Individuals employed as supervisors shall notbe eligible for membership in a labor organization of employees under their supervisionbut may form separate organizations of their own (Emphasis supplied).This was not the consideration in theAdamsoncase because as mentioned earlier, the rank-and-file employees in theAdamsoncase were not under the supervision of the supervisors involved.Meanwhile, Article 245 of the Labor Code as amended by Rep. Act No. 6715 provides: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.The Court construes Article 245 to mean that, as in Section 3 of the Industrial Peace Act, supervisors shall not be given an occasion to bargain together with the rank-and-file against the interests of the employer regarding terms and conditions of workSecond, the national union in theAdamsoncase did not actively represent its local chapters. In the present case, the local union is actively represented by the national federation. In fact, it was the national federation, theKAMPIL-KATIPUNAN, which initially filed a petition for certification in behalf of the respondent union.Thus, if the intent of the law is to avoid a situation where supervisors would merge with the rank and-file or where the supervisors' labor organization would represent conflicting interests, then a local supervisors' union should not be allowed to affiliate with the national federation of union of rank-and-file employees where that federation actively participates in union activity in the company.The petitioner further contends that the term labor organization includes a federation considering that Art. 212 (g) mentions "any union or association of employees."The respondent, however, argues that the phrase refers to a local union only in which case, the prohibition in Art. 245 is inappl