UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES v.

FERRER-CALLEJA all four autonomous campuses of the UP, and that management appear and
G.R. No. 96189 bring copies of the corresponding payrolls for January, June, and July, 1990
July 14, 1992 at the "usual pre-election conference . . ."
Narvasa, C.J. The University filed a Manifestation seeking the exclusion from the
FACTS: organizational unit of those employees holding supervisory positions among
The case was initiated in the Bureau of Labor Relations by a petition non-academic personnel, and those in teaching staff with the rank of
filed on March 2, 1990 by a registered labor union, the "Organization of Non- Assistant Professor or higher.
Academic Personnel of UP" (ONAPUP). Claiming to have a membership of The ONAPUP quite categorically made of record its position; that it
3,236 members — comprising more than 33% of the 9,617 persons was not opposing the University's proferred classification of rank-and file
constituting the non-academic personnel of UP-Diliman, Los Baños, Manila, employees. On the other hand, the "All UP Workers' Union" opposed the
and Visayas, it sought the holding of a certification election among all said University's view, in a Position Paper presented by it under date of October
non-academic employees of the University of the Philippines. At a conference 18, 1990.
thereafter held on March 22, 1990 in the Bureau, the University stated that Director Calleja subsequently promulgated an Order dated October
it had no objection to the election. 30, 1990, resolving the "sole issue" of "whether or not professors, associate
On April 18, 1990, another registered labor union, the "All UP professors and assistant professors are included in the definition of high-level
Workers' Union," 5 filed a comment, as intervenor in the certification election employee(s)" in light of Rule I, Section (1) of the Implementing Guidelines of
proceeding. Alleging that its membership covers both academic and non- Executive Order No. 180. The Director adjudged that said teachers are rank-
academic personnel, and that it aims to unite all UP rank-and-file employees and-file employees "qualified to join unions and vote in certification
in one union, it declared its assent to the holding of the election provided the elections.
appropriate organizational unit was first clearly defined. It observed in this The University seasonably moved for reconsideration. The motion for
connection that the Research, Extension and Professional Staff (REPS), who reconsideration was denied by Director Calleja, by Order dated November 20,
are academic non-teaching personnel, should not be deemed part of the 1990.
organizational unit. The University would now have this Court declare void the Director's
For its part, the University, through its General Counsel, 6 made of Order of October 30, 1990 as well as that of November 20, 1990. 11 A
record its view that there should be two (2) unions: one for academic, the temporary restraining order was issued by the Court, by Resolution dated
other for non-academic or administrative, personnel considering the December 5, 1990 conformably to the University's application therefor.
dichotomy of interests, conditions and rules governing these employee ISSUES:
groups. 1. Whether or not professors, associate professors and assistant
Director Calleja ruled on the matter on August 7, 1990. 7 She declared professors are "high-level employees" "whose functions are normally
that "the appropriate organizational unit . . should embrace all the regular considered policy determining, managerial or highly confidential in
rank-and-file employees, teaching and non-teaching, of the University of the nature."
Philippines, including all its branches" and that there was no sufficient 2. Whether or not, they, and other employees performing academic
evidence "to justify the grouping of the non-academic or administrative functions, should comprise a collective bargaining unit distinct and
personnel into an organization unit apart and distinct from that of the different from that consisting of the non-academic employees of the
academic or teaching personnel. University, considering the dichotomy of interests, conditions and
The Director thus commanded that a certification election be rules existing between them.
"conducted among rank-and-file employees, teaching and non-teaching" in
HELD: Neither can membership in the University Council elevate the professors
1. NO. to the status of high-level employees. It is readily apparent that the policy-
It has been correctly resolved by the respondent Director of Bureau determining functions of the University Council are subject to review,
Relations. In light of Executive Order No. 180 and its implementing rules, as evaluation and final approval by the Board of Regents. The Council's power
well as the University's charter and relevant regulations, the professors, of discipline is likewise circumscribed by the limits imposed by the Board of
associate professors and assistant professors (hereafter simply referred to as Regents. What has been said about the recommendatory powers of the
professors) cannot be considered as exercising such managerial or highly departmental and college academic personnel committees applies with equal
confidential functions as would justify their being categorized as "high-level force to the alleged policy-determining functions of the University Council.
employees" of the institution. Even assuming arguendo that UP professors discharge policy-
It is evident that it is the University Academic Personnel Committee, determining functions through the University Council, still such exercise
composed of deans, the assistant for academic affairs and the chief of would not qualify them as high-level employees within the context of E.O.
personnel, which formulates the policies, rules and standards respecting 180. As correctly observed by private respondent, "Executive Order No. 180
selection, compensation and promotion of members of the academic staff. is a law concerning public sector unionism. It must therefore be construed
The departmental and college academic personnel committees' functions are within that context. Within that context, the University of the Philippines
purely recommendatory in nature, subject to review and evaluation by the represents the government as an employer. 'Policy-determining' refers to
University Academic Personnel Board. In Franklin Baker Company of the policy-determination in university mattes that affect those same matters that
Philippines vs. Trajano, 20 this Court reiterated the principle laid down in may be the subject of negotiation between public sector management and
National Merchandising Corp. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, 21 that the labor. The reason why 'policy-determining' has been laid down as a test in
power to recommend, in order to qualify an employee as a supervisor or segregating rank-and-file from management is to ensure that those who lay
managerial employee "must not only be effective but the exercise of such down policies in areas that are still negotiable in public sector collective
authority should not be merely of a routinary or clerical nature but should bargaining do not themselves become part of those employees who seek to
require the use of independent judgment." Where such recommendatory change these policies for their collective welfare.
powers, as in the case at bar, are subject to evaluation, review and final action The policy-determining functions of the University Council refer to
by the department heads and other higher executives of the company, the academic matters, i.e. those governing the relationship between the
same, although present, are not effective and not an exercise of independent University and its students, and not the University as an employer and the
judgment as required by law. Significantly, the personnel actions that may be professors as employees. It is thus evident that no conflict of interest results
recommended by the departmental and college academic personnel in the professors being members of the University Council and being
committees must conform with the general guidelines drawn up by the classified as rank-and-file employees.
university personnel academic committee. 2. YES.
The power or prerogative pertaining to a high-level employee "to In the case at bar, the University employees may, as already suggested,
effectively recommend such managerial actions, to formulate or execute quite easily be categorized into two general classes: one, the group
management policies or decisions and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, composed of employees whose functions are non-academic, i.e., janitors,
recall, dismiss, assign or discipline employees" 23 is exercised to a certain messengers, typists, clerks, receptionists, carpenters, electricians, grounds-
degree by the university academic personnel board/committees and keepers, chauffeurs, mechanics, plumbers; 32 and two, the group made up
ultimately by the Board of Regents in accordance with Section 6 of the of those performing academic functions, i.e., full professors, associate
University Charter. professors, assistant professors, instructors — who may be judges or
government executives — and research, extension and professorial staff. 33
Not much reflection is needed to perceive that the community or mutuality
of interests which justifies the formation of a single collective bargaining unit
is wanting between the academic and non-academic personnel of the
university. It would seem obvious that teachers would find very little in
common with the University clerks and other non-academic employees as
regards responsibilities and functions, working conditions, compensation
rates, social life and interests, skills and intellectual pursuits, cultural
activities, etc. On the contrary, the dichotomy of interests, the dissimilarity in
the nature of the work and duties as well as in the compensation and working
conditions of the academic and non-academic personnel dictate the
separation of these two categories of employees for purposes of collective
bargaining. The formation of two separate bargaining units, the first
consisting of the rank-and-file non-academic personnel, and the second, of
the rank-and-file academic employees, is the set-up that will best assure to
all the employees the exercise of their collective bargaining rights. These
special circumstances, i.e., the dichotomy of interests and concerns as well as
the dissimilarity in the nature and conditions of work, wages and
compensation between the academic and non-academic personnel, bring the
case at bar within the exception contemplated in Section 9 of Executive Order
No. 180. It was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Labor Relations
Director to have ruled otherwise, ignoring plain and patent realities.
 Bautista v. Court of Appeals election of officers of KKMK-MWSS scheduled on 02 December 1993, and to
G.R. No. 123375 permanently prohibit them from exercising jurisdiction over the conduct of
February 28, 2005 election of the officers of the KKMK-MWSS.
Chico-Nazario, J. On 02 December 1993, the election of the officers of KKMK-MWSS
FACTS: pushed through despite the issuance of the temporary restraining order. On
On 07 May 1993, after a petition for election of officers of Kaisahan 07 December 1993, another Order was issued by the RTC, Quezon City,
at Kapatiran ng mga Manggagawa at Kawani sa Metropolitan Waterworks Branch 87, part of which reads that the defendants, as well as all their agents,
and Sewerage System (KKMK-MWSS) was filed by Bonifacio De Guzman, assigns, representatives and any or all persons having to do with the
former auditor of KKMK-MWSS, a Resolution was issued by Perlita Bathan- elections, scheduled on December 2, 1993, including the BLR officials and the
Velasco, in her capacity as Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) management of the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System, and all
which granted the petition and the Kaisahan at Kapatiran ng mga others cooperating with them, or acting on their behalf and direction, are
Manggagawa at Kawani sa Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System hereby restrained from continuing or tolerating the election process in
(KKMK-MWSS) is hereby directed to immediately conduct an election. question at any stage thereof.
A Motion for Reconsideration was filed by the incumbent officers of On 28 December 1993, an order for the issuance of a writ of
KKMK-MWSS, led by its President, Genaro Bautista, with the BLR, but was preliminary injunction was issued by Branch 87. A day later, or on 29
denied by Perlita Bathan-Velasco on 08 July 1993. An appeal was filed with December 1993, a Writ of Preliminary Injunction was issued by the RTC. After
the Office of the Secretary of Labor and Employment where the order of the the case was re-raffled to Branch 220, RTC, Quezon City,[15] presided by
BLR was assailed as having been issued with grave abuse of discretion and Judge Prudencio Altre Castillo, Jr., the respondents, on 20 June 1994, filed a
without jurisdiction. Reiteration of Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Lift Writ of Preliminary
On 24 August 1993, an Order was issued by the Office of the Injunction,[16] on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and that the injunction
Secretary of Labor and Employment, through Undersecretary Bienvenido does not anymore serve its purpose.[17] Branch 220 issued an Order dated
Laguesma which stated that the subject of the present controversy is an intra 01 July 1994, dismissing the case
union conflict involving an employees organization in the public sector On 09 October 1995, a Decision was rendered by the Court of Appeals
created and registered pursuant to Executive Order No. 180. Consequently, finding for the private respondents, upholding that the BLR had jurisdiction
this office (referring to the Secretary of Labor and Employment) has no other over an intra-union dispute
recourse but to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. ISSUE:
The then incumbent officers of KKMK-MWSS, represented by its Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over a case involving an intra-
President, Genaro C. Bautista, filed a special civil action for certiorari which union dispute (election of officers) of an employees organization in the public
was, however, dismissed. In the main, the petition of petitioners argues that sector (MWSS).
public respondents have no jurisdiction over an intra-union dispute among HELD:
government employees, hence, cannot order a new election of officers. The petition must fail.
Earlier, or on 25 November 1993, a Petition for Prohibition with The decision of the Court of Appeals relied on our earlier ruling in the
Prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order/Injunction[8] was filed by Genaro case of Association of Court of Appeals Employees (ACAE) v. Ferrer-
Bautista, et al., against Perlita Bathan-Velasco, Director, Eugenia Fernandez, Calleja.[38] In this case, we held that the BLR has the jurisdiction to call for
Med-Arbiter, and Johnny P. Garcia, Chief, Labor Organizations Division, all of and supervise the conduct of certification elections in the public sector.
the BLR, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City, Branch 87. The The authority of the BLR in assuming jurisdiction over a certification
petition sought to enjoin the herein respondents from proceeding with the election, or any inter-union or intra-union conflicts, is found in Article 226 of
the Labor Code of the Philippines. It is quite clear from this provision that
BLR has the original and exclusive jurisdiction on all inter-union and intra-
union conflicts. An intra-union conflict would refer to a conflict within or
inside a labor union, and an inter-union controversy or dispute, one occurring
or carried on between or among unions. The subject of the case at bar, which
is the election of the officers and members of the board of KMKK-MWSS, is,
clearly, an intra-union conflict, being within or inside a labor union. It is well
within the powers of the BLR to act upon. The petitioner is asking us to make
an illogical edict by declaring that our ruling in the ACAE case, considering
that it involved an inter-union conflict, should not apply to the instant case
for the reason that the latter involves an intra-union conflict. This, we cannot
do because the law is very clear on this matter. Since Article 226 of the Labor
Code has declared that the BLR shall have original and exclusive authority to
act on all inter-union and intra-union conflicts, then there should be no more
doubt as to its jurisdiction.
 PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG MAYNILA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION issued its Resolution No. 92-814, dated 25 June 1992, sustaining the findings
G.R. No. 107590 of the PSLMC. The CSC, accordingly, directed the reinstatement, with back
February 21, 1995 salaries, of private respondents.
Vitug, J. On 11 May 1993, this Court, acting on petitioner's motion for the
FACTS: issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, issued, on 18 May 1993, a
The sixteen (16) individual private respondents were full-time temporary restraining order directing respondent CSC "to cease and desist
instructors of PLM under "temporary contracts" of employment renewable from executing (its) assailed Resolutions No. 92-814 and No. 92-1573.
on a yearly basis. They, among other instructors, joined the Pamantasan Ng Petitioner stresses that the CSC and the PSLMC both exercise quasi-
Lungsod Ng Maynila Faculty Organization ("PLMFO"). judicial functions but not on identical issues and subject matter; that the
Uniform notices of termination, all dated 24 April 1990, were PSLMC possesses jurisdiction only over the unfair labor practice aspect of
individually sent to private respondents informing them of "the expiration of private respondents' complaint but that it is the CSC which alone can take
their temporary appointments at the close of office hours on 31 May 1990" cognizance over the question of illegal dismissal; and that, therefore, when
and the non-renewal of their appointments for the school year (SY) 1990- the CSC has simply adopted the recommendations of the PSLMC in the unfair
1991. A series of letter-complaints addressed to the CSC by private labor practice case in resolving the issue of illegal dismissal and ordering the
respondents evoked a letter-response from PLM, dated 16 May 1990, reinstatement of private respondents without conducting further
traversing the complainants' right to compel a renewal of the appointments. proceedings of its own, it has effectively denied petitioner of its right to due
They were advised that their retention was not recommended by their process.
respective Deans. HELD:
On 29 May 1990, private respondents, through PLMFO, filed with the Petitioner insists that when CSC has ruled on the matter of illegal
CSC a verified complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice against dismissal without conducting any further hearing of its own, relying, instead,
petitioner and its officers. On 13 July 1990, petitioner denied having on PSLMC's finding of unfair labor practice on the part of petitioner, the latter
committed any unfair labor practice or having illegally dismissed private has thereby been denied due process. Unfortunately for petitioner, however,
respondents. In its defense, PLM interposed (1) the temporary nature of the two supposed independent issues, i.e., the unfair labor practice charge
private respondents' contracts of employment and (2) reasons that could and the complaint for illegal dismissal both filed by private respondents, are,
justify the non- renewal of the contracts. in fact, here unavoidably interlinked. The non-renewal of an employment
Public respondent CSC referred the case to the Public Sector Labor- contract with a term, it is true, is ordinarily a valid mode of removal at the
Management Council1 ("PSLMC"). The latter, through its deputized hearing end of each period. This rule, however, must yield to the superior
officer, Med-Arbiter Hope Ruiz-Valenzuela of the Bureau of Labor Relations constitutional right of employees, permanent or temporary, to self-
of the Department of Labor and Employment, after due notice, heard the organization. While, a temporary employment may be ended with or without
case. In a Resolution,2 dated 16 December 1991, the PSLMC found petitioner cause, it certainly may not, however, be terminated for an illegal cause.
guilty of "Unfair Labor Practice" and held that private respondents "should be Petitioner claims that it was denied "due process." It itself admitted,
reinstated." however, that "it manifested (before the PSLMC) its intention to submit
On 15 May 1992, petitioner filed with this Court a petition for evidence (that it had other valid grounds for not renewing private
certiorari, entitled "Pamantasan Ng Lungsod Ng Maynila vs. Public Sector respondents' temporary contracts of employment) which, inadvertently or
Labor-Management Council, et al.," docketed G.R. No. 105157, that sought otherwise, it failed to present . . . 12 This supposed evidence, if true and being
the annulment of the aforementioned PSLMC resolutions. In the meantime, material to substantiate its defense against the unfair labor charge, should
public respondent CSC, acting on the case forwarded to it by the PSLMC, have been duly presented, but it did not. Petitioner should not now be heard
to complain that it was denied due process. We ruled, time and again, that
"due process" was designed to afford an opportunity to be heard,13 not that
an actual hearing should always and indispensably be held.
 UNITED PEPSI-COLA UNION v. LAGUESMA MIDDLE MANAGERS The term middle management can refer to more than one level in an
organization. Middle managers direct the activities of other managers and sometimes also those of
G.R. No. 122226 operating employees. Middle managers principal responsibilities are to direct the activities that
March 25, 1998 implement their organizations policies and to balance the demands of their superiors with the
Mendoza, J. capacities of their subordinates. A plant manager in an electronics firm is an example of a middle
FACTS: manager.
TOP MANAGERS Composed of a comparatively small group of executives, top management is
Petitioner is a union of supervisory employees. It appears that on responsible for the overall management of the organization. It establishes operating policies and
March 20, 1995 the union filed a petition for certification election on behalf guides the organizations interactions with its environment. Typical titles of top managers are chief
of the route managers at Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. However, its executive officer, president, and senior vice-president. Actual titles vary from one organization to
another and are not always a reliable guide to membership in the highest management
petition was denied by the med-arbiter and, on appeal, by the Secretary of classification.
Labor and Employment, on the ground that the route managers are As can be seen from this description, a distinction exist between those who have the authority to
managerial employees and, therefore, ineligible for union membership under devise, implement and control strategic and operational policies (top and middle managers) and
those whose task is simply to ensure that such polices are carried out by the rank-and-file employees
the first sentence of Art. 245 of the Labor Code.
of an organization (first-level managers/supervisors). What distinguishes them from the rank-and
Petitioner brought this suit challenging the validity of the order dated file employees is that they act in the interest of the employer in supervising such rank-and-file
August 31, 1995, as reiterated in the order dated September 22, 1995, of the employees.
Secretary of Labor and Employment. Its petition was dismissed by the Third Managerial employees may therefore be said to fall into two distinct categories: the managers per
se, who compose the former group described above, and the supervisors who form the latter group.
Division for lack of showing that respondent committed grave abuse of Whether they belong to the first or second category, managers, vis--vis employers, are, likewise,
discretion. But petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, pressing for employees.
resolution its contention that the first sentence of Art. 245 of the Labor Code, It appears that this question was the subject of two previous
so far as it declares managerial employees to be ineligible to form, assist or determinations by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, in accordance
join unions, contravenes Art. III 8 of the Constitution. with which this case was decided by the med-arbiter. n Case No. OS-MA-
ISSUES: 10318-91, entitled Workerss Alliance Trade Union (WATU) v. Pepsi-Cola
1. Whether the route managers at Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. Products Philippines, Inc., decided on November 13, 1991, the Secretary of
are managerial employees? Labor found: To qualify as managerial employee, there must be a clear showing of the exercise
2. Whether Art. 245, insofar as it prohibits managerial employees from of managerial attributes under paragraph (m), Article 212 of the Labor Code as amended.
Designations or titles of positions are not controlling. In the instant case, nothing on record will
forming, joining or assisting labor unions, violates Art. III, 8 of the support the claim that the quality control manager, yard/transport manager and warehouse
Constitution? operations manager are vested with said attributes. The warehouse operations manager, for
HELD: example, merely assists the plant finance manager in planning, organizing, directing and controlling
1. YES. all activities relative to development and implementation of an effective management control
information system at the sale offices. The exercise of authority of the quality control manager, on
The term manager generally refers to anyone who is responsible for the other hand, needs the concurrence of the manufacturing manager.
subordinates and other organization resources. As a class, managers On July 6, 1992, this finding was reiterated in Case No. OS-A-3-71-92,
constitute three levels of a pyramid: entitled In Re: Petition for Direct Certification and/or Certification Election-
FIRST-LINE MANAGERS The lowest level in an organization at which individuals are responsible for
Route Managers/Supervisory Employees of Pepsi-Cola Products Phils. Inc. At
the work of others is called first-line or first-level management. First-line managers direct operating
employees only; they do not supervise other managers. Example of first-line managers are the the very least, the principle of finality of administrative determination
foreman or production supervisor in a manufacturing plant, the technical supervisor in a research compels respect for the finding of the Secretary of Labor that route managers
department, and the clerical supervisor in a large office. First-level managers are often called are managerial employees as defined by law in the absence of anything to
supervisors.
show that such determination is without substantial evidence to support it.
Nonetheless, the Court, concerned that employees who are otherwise
supervisors may wittingly or unwittingly be classified as managerial personnel While route managers do not appear to have the power to
and thus denied the right of self- organization, has decided to review the hire and fire people (the evidence shows that they only "recommended" or
record of this case. "endorsed" the taking of disciplinary action against certain employees), this
The Court now finds that the job evaluation made by the Secretary of is because this is a function of the Human Resources or Personnel
Labor is indeed supported by substantial evidence. Earlier in this opinion, Department of the company.[14]14 And neither should it be presumed that
reference was made to the distinction between managers per se (top just because they are given set benchmarks to observe, they are ipso facto
managers and middle managers) and supervisors (first-line managers). That supervisors. Adequate control methods (as embodied in such concepts as
distinction is evident in the work of the route managers which sets them "Management by Objectives [MBO]" and "performance appraisals") which
apart from supervisors in general. Unlike supervisors who basically merely require a delineation of the functions and responsibilities of managers by
direct operating employees in line with set tasks assigned to them, route means of ready reference cards as here, have long been recognized in
managers are responsible for the success of the company's main line of management as effective tools for keeping businesses competitive.
business through management of their respective sales teams. Such 2. NO.
management necessarily involves the planning, direction, operation and Although the definition of "supervisory employees" seems to have been
evaluation of their individual teams and areas which the work of supervisors unduly restricted to the last phrase of the definition in the Industrial Peace
does not entail. The route managers cannot thus possibly be classified as Act, the legal significance given to the phrase "effectively recommends"
mere supervisors because their work does not only involve, but goes far remains the same. In fact, the distinction between top and middle managers,
beyond, the simple direction or supervision of operating employees to who set management policy, and front-line supervisors, who are merely
accomplish objectives set by those above them. They are not mere responsible for ensuring that such policies are carried out by the rank and file,
functionaries with simple oversight functions but business administrators in is articulated in the present definition. When read in relation to this definition
their own right. in Art. 212(m), it will be seen that Art. 245 faithfully carries out the intent of
Article 212(m) says that "supervisory employees are those who, in the Constitutional Commission in framing Art. III, 8 of the fundamental law.
the interest of the employer, effectively recommend such managerial actions Nor is the guarantee of organizational right in Art. III, 8 infringed by a ban
if the exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature against managerial employees forming a union. The right guaranteed in Art.
but requires the use of independent judgment." Thus, their only power is to III, 8 is subject to the condition that its exercise should be for purposes "not
recommend. Certainly, the route managers in this case more than merely contrary to law." In the case of Art. 245, there is a rational basis for prohibiting
recommend effective management action. They perform operational, human managerial employees from forming or joining labor organizations. As Justice
resource, financial and marketing functions for the company, all of which Davide, Jr., himself a constitutional commissioner, said in his ponencia in
involve the laying down of operating policies for themselves and their teams. Philips Industrial Development, Inc. v. NLRC:
For example, with respect to marketing, route managers, in accordance with In the first place, all these employees, with the exception of the service engineers and the
B.1.1.1 to B.1.1.9 of the Route Managers Job Description, are charged, among sales force personnel, are confidential employees. Their classification as such is not
seriously disputed by PEO-FFW; the five (5) previous CBAs between PIDI and PEO-FFW
other things, with expanding the dealership base of their respective sales explicitly considered them as confidential employees. By the very nature of their
areas, maintaining the goodwill of current dealers, and distributing the functions, they assist and act in a confidential capacity to, or have access to confidential
company's various promotional items as they see fit. It is difficult to see how matters of, persons who exercise managerial functions in the field of labor relations. As
supervisors can be given such responsibility when this involves not just the such, the rationale behind the ineligibility of managerial employees to form, assist or joint
a labor union equally applies to them.
routine supervision of operating employees but the protection and expansion
In Bulletin Publishing Co., Inc. v. Hon. Augusto Sanchez, this Court
of the company's business vis-a-vis its competitors.
elaborated on this rationale, thus:
 ". . . The rationale for this inhibition has been stated to be, because if these managerial
employees would belong to or be affiliated with a Union, the latter might not be assured
of their loyalty to the Union in view of evident conflict of interests. The Union can also
become company-dominated with the presence of managerial employees in Union
membership."
To be sure, the Court in Philips Industrial was dealing with the right of
confidential employees to organize. But the same reason for denying them
the right to organize justifies even more the ban on managerial employees
from forming unions. After all, those who qualify as top or middle managers
are executives who receive from their employers information that not only is
confidential but also is not generally available to the public, or to their
competitors, or to other employees. It is hardly necessary to point out that to
say that the first sentence of Art. 245 is unconstitutional would be to
contradict the decision in that case.
 FRANKLIN BAKER COMPANY v. TRAJANO ISSUE:
G.R. No. 75039 Whether or not public respondent acted with grave abuse of
January 28, 1988 discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when he ruled that the 76
Paras, J. employees subject of this petition are not managerial employees (inspectors,
FACTS: foremen, supervisors and the like) and therefore, may participate in the
On April 23, 1984, private respondent Franklin Baker Brotherhood certification election among the office and technical employees.
Association-(ATU) filed a petition for certification election among the office HELD:
and technical employees of petitioner company with the Ministry of Labor A managerial employee is defined as one "who is vested with powers
and Employment. Among other things, it alleges that Franklin Baker Company or prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or to hire,
of the Phils. Davao Plant, had in its employ approximately ninety (90) regular transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees, or
technical and office employees, which group is separate and distinct from the to effectively recommend such managerial actions."
regular rank and file employees and is excluded from the coverage of existing To sustain its posture, that the inspectors, foreman and supervisors numbering 76 are
managerial employees, petitioner painstakingly demonstrates that subject employees indeed
Collective Bargaining Agreement. participate in the formulation and execution of company policies and regulations as to the conduct
Petitioner company did not object to the holding of such an election of work in the plant, exercised the power to hire, suspend or dismiss subordinate employees and
but manifested that out of the ninety (90) employees sought to be effectively recommend such action, by citing concrete cases, among which are: (1) Mr. Ponciano
represented by the respondent union, seventy four (74) are managerial Viola, a wet process inspector, who while in the performance of his duty, found Mr. Enrique
Asuncion, a trimmer "forging", falsifying and simulating a company time card (timesheet) resulting
employees while two (2) others are confidential employees, hence, must be in payroll padding, immediately recommended the dismissal of said erring employee, resulting in
excluded from the certification election and from the bargaining unit that the latter's discharge. (Employer's Memo, Rollo, p.18); (2) Mr. Manuel Alipio, an opening inspector,
may result from such election. recommended for suspension Nut Operator Ephraim Dumayos who was caught in the act of
surreptitiously transferring to a co-worker's bin some whole nuts which act constitutes a violation
Subsequently, on September 17, 1984, Med-Arbiter Conchita J. of company policy; (3) Mr. Sofronio Abangan, a line inspector, censured and thereafter
Martinez issued an order, the dispositive part of which reads: Accordingly, the recommended the suspension of Mr. Romeo Fullante, for being remiss in the proper and accurate
petition is hereby granted and a certification election among the office and technical employees of counting of nuts; (4) Binleader Dionisio Agtang was required to explain his inefficiency of Mr.
Franklin Baker Company of the Philippines, Davao Plant is ordered within twenty (20) days from Saturnino Bangkas, Bin Loading Inspector; (5) for disobeying the orders of Bin Loading Inspector
receipt hereof. Mauricio Lumanog's order, Macario Mante, Eduardo Adaptor, Rodolfo Irene and George Rellanos
From the aforequoted order petitioner Company appealed to the Bureau were all recommended for suspension which culminated in an investigation conducted by
Lumanog's higher bosses.
of Labor Relations, docketed as BLR Case No. A-22884, praying that the
It has also been shown that subject employees have the power to hire, as evidenced by
appealed order be set aside and another be issued declaring the seventy four the hiring of Rolando Asis, Roy Layson, Arcadio Gaudicos and Felix Arciaga, upon the
(74) inspectors, foremen and supervisors as managerial employees. recommendation of Opening Inspector Serafin Suelo, Processing Inspector Leonardo Velez and
During the pendency of the appeal, sixty one (61) of the employees Laureano C. Lim, Opening Inspector.
involved, filed a Motion to Withdraw the petition for certification election It will be noted, however, that in the performance of their duties and
praying therein for their exclusion from the Bargaining Unit and for a functions and in the exercise of their recommendatory powers, subject
categorical declaration that they are managerial employees, as they are employees may only recommend, as the ultimate power to hire, fire or
performing managerial functions. suspend as the case may be, rests upon the plant personnel manager.
On April 7, 1986, public respondent Bureau of Labor Relations Cresencio The test of "supervisory" or "managerial status" depends on whether
B. Trajano issued a Resolution affirming the order dated September 17, 1984. a person possesses authority to act in the interest of his employer in the
Hence, this petition. matter specified in Article 212 (k) of the Labor Code and Section 1 (m) of its
Implementing Rules and whether such authority is not merely routinary or
clerical in nature, but requires the use of independent judgment. Thus, where
such recommendatory powers as in the case at bar, are subject to evaluation,
review and final action by the department heads and other higher executives
of the company, the same, although present, are not effective and not an
exercise of independent judgment as required by law.
Furthermore, in line with the ruling of this Court, subject employees
are not managerial employees because as borne by the records, they do not
participate in policy making but are given ready policies to execute and
standard practices to observe, thus having little freedom of action.
 PAPER INDUSTRIES CORP. v. LAGUESMA each of these business groups. A division manager heads the divisions
G. R. No.101738. comprising each business group. A department manager heads the
April 12, 2000 departments comprising each division. Section heads and supervisors, now
De Leon, J. called section managers and unit managers, head the sections and
FACTS: independent units, respectively, comprising each department.[17] PICOP
Petitioner Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines (PICOP) is advanced the view that considering the alleged present authority of these
engaged in the manufacture of paper and timber products, with principal section managers and unit managers to hire and fire, they are classified as
place of operations at Tabon, Bislig, Surigao del Sur. It has over 9,000 managerial employees, and hence, ineligible to form or join any labor
employees, 944 of whom are supervisory and technical staff employees. organization.
More or less 487 of these supervisory and technical staff employees are Med-Arbiter Phibun D. Pura issued an Order[21] dated March 27,
signatory members of the private respondent PICOP-Bislig Supervisory and 1990, holding that supervisors and section heads of the petitioner are
Technical Staff Employees Union (PBSTSEU). managerial employees and therefore excluded from the list of voters for
On August 9, 1989. PBSTSEU instituted a Petition for Certification purposes of certification election.
Election to determine the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the PBSTSEU appealed the Order of the Med-Arbiter to the Office of the
supervisory and technical staff employees of PICOP for collective bargaining Secretary, DOLE. ALU likewise appealed. PICOP submitted evidence militating
agreement (CBA) purposes. Private respondents Federation of Free Workers against the appeal. Public respondent Bienvenido E. Laguesma, acting as the
(FFW) and Associated Labor Union (ALU) filed their respective petitions for then Undersecretary of Labor, issued the assailed Order dated April 17, 1991
intervention. setting aside the Order dated March 27, 1990 of the Med-Arbiter and
On September 14, 1989, Med-Arbiter Arturo L. Gamolo issued an declaring that the subject supervisors and section heads are supervisory
Order granting the petitions for interventions of the FFW and ALU. Another employees eligible to vote in the certification election.
Order issued on the same day set the holding of a certification election among ISSUE:
PICOP's supervisory and technical staff employees in Tabon, Bislig, Surigao Whether or not the positions Section Heads and Supervisors, who
del Sur, with four (4) choices, namely: (1) PBSTSEU; (2) FFW; (3) ALU; and (4) have been designated as Section Managers and Unit Managers were
no union. converted to managerial employees under the decentralization and
On September 21, 1989, PICOP appealed the Order which set the reorganization program which PICOP implemented in 1989?
holding of the certification election contending that the Med-Arbiter HELD:
committed grave abuse of discretion in deciding the case without giving NO.
PICOP the opportunity to file its comments/answer, and that PBSTSEU had no In the petition before us, a thorough dissection of the job description
personality to file the petition for certification election. of the concerned supervisory employees and section heads indisputably
During the pre-election conference on January 18, 1990, PICOP show that they are not actually managerial but only supervisory employees
questioned and objected to the inclusion of some section heads and since they do not lay down company policies. PICOP's contention that the
supervisors in the list of voters whose positions it averred were reclassified subject section heads and unit managers exercise the authority to hire and
as managerial employees in the light of the reorganization effected by it. fire is ambiguous and quite misleading for the reason that any authority they
Under the Revised Organizational Structure of the PICOP, the exercise is not supreme but merely advisory in character. Theirs is not a final
company was divided into four (4) main business groups, namely: Paper determination of the company policies inasmuch as any action taken by them
Products Business, Timber Products Business, Forest Resource Business and on matters relative to hiring, promotion, transfer, suspension and
Support Services Business. A vice- president or assistant vice-president heads termination of employees is still subject to confirmation and approval by their
respective superior. Thus, where such power, which is in effect
recommendatory in character, is subject to evaluation, review and final
action by the department heads and other higher executives of the company,
the same, although present, is not effective and not an exercise of
independent judgment as required by law.
 SAN MIGUEL CORP. v. MANDAUE PACKING PRODUCTS PLANT On 20 August 1998, petitioner filed a petition to cancel the union
G.R. No. 152356. registration of respondent. However, this petition was denied, and such
August 16, 2005 denial was subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeals in a decision that
Tinga, J. has since become final.
FACTS: In the meantime, on 15 September 1998, Med-Arbiter Manit issued
On 15 June 1998, respondent, identifying itself as an affiliate of an Order dismissing respondents petition for certification election. The sole
Federation of Free Workers (FFW), filed a petition for certification election ground relied upon for the dismissal was the Med-Arbiters Opinion that as of
with the DOLE Regional Office No. VII. In the petition, respondent stated that the date of filing of the petition on 15 June 1998, respondent did not have
it sought to be certified and to represent the permanent rank-and-file the legal personality to file the said petition for certification election.
monthly paid employees of the petitioner. Respondent promptly appealed the 15 September 1998 Order to the
On 27 July 1998, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the petition for DOLE. On 22 February 1999, DOLE Undersecretary Rosalinda Dimapilis-Baldoz
certification election on the sole ground that herein respondent is not listed rendered a Decision reversing the Order. Undersecretary Baldoz concluded
or included in the roster of legitimate labor organizations based on the that respondent acquired legal personality as early as 15 June 1998, the date
certification issued by the Officer-In-Charge, Regional Director of the DOLE it submitted the required documents, citing Section 3, Rule VI of the New
Regional Office. Rules Implementing the Labor Code (Implementing Rules) which deems that
On 29 July 1998, respondent submitted to the Bureau of Labor a local/chapter acquires legal personality from the date of filing of the
Relations the same documents earlier attached to its petition for complete documentary requirements as mandated in the Implementing
certification. The accompanying letter, signed by respondents president Rules.
Sagun, stated that such documents were submitted in compliance with the ISSUES:
requirements for the creation of a local/chapter pursuant to the Labor Code When did Respondent acquire legal personality?
and its Implementing Rules; and it was hoped that the submissions would HELD:
facilitate the listing of respondent under the roster of legitimate labor Section 3, Rule VI of Department Order No. 9 provides when the local/chapter acquires
legal personality.
organizations. Section 3. Acquisition of legal personality by local chapter. A local/chapter constituted in
On 3 August 1998, the Chief of Labor Relations Division of DOLE accordance with Section 1 of this Rule shall acquire legal personality from the date of filing of the
Regional Office No. VII issued a Certificate of Creation of Local/Chapter No. complete documents enumerated therein. Upon compliance with all the documentary
ITD. I-ARFBT-058/98, certifying that from 30 July 1998, respondent has requirements, the Regional Office or Bureau shall issue in favor of the local/chapter a certificate
indicating that it is included in the roster of legitimate labor organizations.
acquired legal personality as a labor organization/workers association, it It is evident based on this rule that the local/chapter acquires legal personality from the
having submitted all the required documents. date of the filing of the complete documentary requirements, and not from the issuance of a
Petitioner filed a Comment, wherein it reiterated that respondent certification to such effect by the Regional Office or Bureau. On the other hand, a labor organization
is deemed to have acquired legal personality only on the date of issuance of its certificate of
was not a legitimate labor organization at the time of the filing of the petition. registration,[28] which takes place only after the Bureau of Labor Relations or its Regional Offices
Petitioner also propounded that contrary to respondents objectives of has undertaken an evaluation process lasting up until thirty (30) days, within which period it
establishing an organization representing rank-and-file employees, two of approves or denies the application.[29] In contrast, no such period of evaluation is provided in
Department Order No. 9 for the application of a local/chapter, and more importantly, under it such
respondents officers, namely Vice-President Emannuel L. Rosell and
local/chapter is deemed to acquire legal personality from the date of filing of the documents
Secretary Bathan, were actually supervisory employees. In support of this enumerated under Section 1, Rule VI, Book V.
allegation, petitioner attached various documents evidencing the designation The arguments raised by petitioner on this point are plainly
of these two officers in supervisory roles, as well as their exercise of various erroneous.
supervisory functions.
 Petitioner cites the case of Toyota Motor Philippines v. Toyota Motor certified under oath by the Secretary or Treasurer of the local/chapter and
Philippines Corporation Labor Union,[38] and the purported holding therein attested by the President, which vests legal personality in the local/chapter,
that [if] it is true that at the time of the filing of the petition, the said which is then free to file on its own a petition for certification election.
registration certificate has not been approved yet, then, petitioner lacks the
legal personality to file the petition.[39] However, an examination of the case In this case, the federation in question, the FFW, did not submit any
actually reveals that the cited portion was lifted from one of the antecedent of these documentary requirements to the Regional Office or Bureau. It did
rulings of the Med-Arbiter in that case which had not even been affirmed or however issue a charter certificate to the putative local/chapter (herein
reinstated by the Court on review.[40] Moreover, such pronouncement made respondent). Respondent then submitted the charter certificate along with
prior to the enactment of Department Order No. 9 squarely contradicts the other documentary requirements to the Regional Office, but not for the
Section 3, Rule VI thereof, which provides that legal personality of the specific purpose of creating the local/chapter, but for filing the petition for
local/chapter is vested upon the submission of the complete documentary certification election.
requirements.
It could be properly said that at the exact moment respondent was
It is also worth noting that petitioner union in Toyota was an independent filing the petition for certification, it did not yet possess any legal personality,
labor union, and not a local/chapter, and under Department Order No. 9, since the requisites for acquisition of legal personality under Section 3, Rule
independent labor unions, unlike local/chapters, acquire legal personality VI of Department Order No. 9 had not yet been complied with. It could also
only upon issuance of the certificate of registration by the Bureau or Regional be discerned that the intention of the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules
Office. Still, petitioner cites in its favor Section 5, Rule V of Dept. Order No. 9, that only those labor organizations that have acquired legal personality are
which states that the labor organization or workers association shall be capacitated to file petitions for certification elections. Such is the general
deemed registered and vested with legal personality on the date of issuance rule.
of its certificate of registration. Again, the citation is obviously misplaced, as Yet there are peculiar circumstances in this case that allow the Court
respondent herein is a local/chapter, the acquisition of its legal personality to rule that respondent acquired the requisite legal personality at the same
being governed instead by Section 3, Rule VI. time it filed the petition for certification election. In doing so, the Court
It is thus very clear that the issuance of the certificate of registration acknowledges that the strict letter of the procedural rule was not complied
by the Bureau or Regional Office is not the operative act that vests legal with. However, labor laws are generally construed liberally in favor of labor,
personality upon a local/chapter under Department Order No. 9. Such legal especially if doing so affirms the constitutionally guaranteed right to self-
personality is acquired from the filing of the complete documentary organization.
requirements enumerated in Section 1, Rule VI. Admittedly, the manner by There is no doubt that on 15 June 1998, or the date respondent filed
which respondent was deemed to have acquired legal personality by the its petition for certification election, attached thereto were respondents
DOLE and the Court of Appeals was not in strict conformity with the constitution, the names and addresses of its officers, and the charter
provisions of Department Order No. 9. certificate issued by the national union FFW. The first two of these documents
In regular order, it is the federation or national union, already in were duly certified under oath by respondents secretary Bathan and attested
possession of legal personality, which initiates the creation of the to by president Sagun.
local/chapter. It issues a charter certificate indicating the creation or It may be noted though that respondent never submitted a separate
establishment of the local/chapter. It then submits this charter certificate, by-laws, nor does it appear that respondent ever intended to prepare a set
along with the names of the local/chapters officers, constitution and by-laws thereof. Section 1(c), Rule VI, Book V of Department Order No. 9 provides
to the Regional Office or Bureau. It is the submission of these documents, that the submission of both a constitution and a set of by-laws is required, or
at least an indication that the local/chapter is adopting the constitution and
by-laws of the federation or national union. A literal reading of the provision
might indicate that the failure to submit a specific set of by-laws is fatal to the
recognition of the local/chapter. A more critical analysis of this requirement
though is in order, especially as it should apply to this petition.
However, if those key by-law provisions on matters such as quorum
requirements, meetings, or on the internal governance of the local/chapter
are themselves already provided for in the constitution, then it would be
feasible to overlook the requirement for by-laws. Indeed in such an event, to
insist on the submission of a separate document denominated as By-Laws
would be an undue technicality, as well as a redundancy. An examination of
respondents constitution reveals it sufficiently comprehensive in establishing
the necessary rules for its operation.
In the ordinary course, it should have been FFW, and not respondent,
which should have submitted the subject documents to the Regional Office.
Nonetheless, there is no good reason to deny legal personality or defer its
conferral to the local/chapter if it is evident at the onset that the federation
or national union itself has already through its own means established the
local/chapter. In this case, such is evidenced by the Charter Certificate dated
9 June 1998, issued by FFW, and attached to the petition for certification
election. The Charter Certificate expressly states that respondent has been
issued the said certificate to operate as a local or chapter of the [FFW]. The
Charter Certificate expressly acknowledges FFWs intent to establish
respondent as of 9 June 1998.[44] This being the case, we consider it
permissible for respondent to have submitted the required documents itself
to the Regional Office, and proper that respondents legal personality be
deemed existent as of 15 June 1998, the date the complete documents were
submitted.
 METROLAB INDUSTRIES v. CONFESOR On 29 June 1992, after exhaustive negotiations, the parties entered
G.R. No. 108855. into a new CBA. The execution, however, was without prejudice to the
February 28, 1996 outcome of the issues raised in the reconsideration and clarification motions
Kapunan, J. submitted for decision to the Secretary of Labor.
FACTS: Pending the resolution of the aforestated motions, on 2 October
Private respondent Metro Drug Corporation Employees Association- 1992, Metrolab laid off 73 of its employees on grounds of redundancy due to
Federation of Free Workers (hereinafter referred to as the Union) is a labor lack of work which the Union again promptly opposed on 5 October 1992. On
organization representing the rank and file employees of petitioner Metrolab 15 October 1992, Labor Secretary Confesor again issued a cease and desist
Industries, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Metrolab/MII) and also of Metro order. Metrolab moved for a reconsideration
Drug, Inc. ISSUES:
On 31 December 1990, the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) Whether or not public respondent Labor Secretary committed grave abuse of
between Metrolab and the Union expired. The negotiations for a new CBA, discretion and exceeded her jurisdiction in declaring the subject layoffs
however, ended in a deadlock. on 23 August 1991, the Union filed a notice of instituted by Metrolab illegal on grounds that these unilateral actions
strike against Metrolab and Metro Drug Inc. The parties failed to settle their aggravated the conflict between Metrolab and the Union who were, then,
dispute despite the conciliation efforts of the National Conciliation and locked in a stalemate in CBA negotiations.
Mediation Board. HELD:
On 27 December 1991, then Labor Secretary Torres issued an order NO.
resolving all the disputed items in the CBA and ordered the parties involved This Court recognizes the exercise of management prerogatives and
to execute a new CBA. Thereafter, the Union filed a motion for often declines to interfere with the legitimate business decisions of the
reconsideration. employer. However, this privilege is not absolute but subject to limitations
On 27 January 1992, during the pendency of the abovementioned imposed by law. The case at bench constitutes one of the exceptions. The
motion for reconsideration, Metrolab laid off 94 of its rank and file Secretary of Labor is expressly given the power under the Labor Code to
employees. On the same date, the Union filed a motion for a cease and desist assume jurisdiction and resolve labor disputes involving industries
order to enjoin Metrolab from implementing the mass layoff, alleging that indispensable to national interest. The disputed injunction is subsumed under
such act violated the prohibition against committing acts that would this special grant of authority. Art. 263 (g) of the Labor Code.
exacerbate the dispute as specifically directed in the assumption order. That Metrolabs business is of national interest is not disputed.
On the other hand, Metrolab contended that the layoff was Metrolab is one of the leading manufacturers and suppliers of medical and
temporary and in the exercise of its management prerogative. It maintained pharmaceutical products to the country. Metro labs management
that the company would suffer a yearly gross revenue loss of approximately prerogatives, therefore, are not being unjustly curtailed but duly balanced
sixty-six (66) million pesos due to the withdrawal of its principals in the Toll with and tempered by the limitations set by law, taking into account its
and Contract Manufacturing Department. Metrolab further asserted that special character and the particular circumstances in the case at bench.
with the automation of the manufacture of its product Eskinol, the number Metrolab insists that the subject layoffs did not exacerbate their
of workers required its production is significantly reduced. dispute with the Union since no untoward incident occurred after the layoffs
On 14 April 1992, Acting Labor Secretary Nieves Confesor issued a were implemented. There were no work disruptions or stoppages and no
resolution declaring the layoff of Metrolabs 94 rank and file workers illegal mass actions were threatened or undertaken. Instead, petitioner asserts, the
and ordered their reinstatement with full backwages. affected employees calmly accepted their fate as this was a matter which
they had been previously advised would be inevitable.
 After a judicious review of the record, we find no compelling reason confidential employees in the Union. Forming part of the bargaining unit, the
to overturn the findings of the Secretary of Labor. We reaffirm the doctrine executive secretaries stand to benefit from any agreement executed
that considering their expertise in their respective fields, factual findings of between the Union and Metrolab. Such a scenario, thus, gives rise to a
administrative agencies supported by substantial evidence are accorded potential conflict between personal interests and their duty as confidential
great respect and binds this Court. employees to act for and in behalf of Metrolab. They do not have to be union
Metrolab and the Union were still in the process of resolving their members to affect or influence either side.
CBA deadlock when petitioner implemented the subject layoffs. As a result, Finally, confidential employees cannot be classified as rank and file.
motions and oppositions were filed diverting the parties attention, delaying As previously discussed, the nature of employment of confidential employees
resolution of the bargaining deadlock and postponing the signing of their new is quite distinct from the rank and file, thus, warranting a separate category.
CBA, thereby aggravating the whole conflict. We, likewise, find untenable Excluding confidential employees from the rank and file bargaining unit,
Metrolabs contention that the layoff of the 94 rank-and-file employees was therefore, is not tantamount to discrimination.
temporary, despite the recall of some of the laid off workers. If Metrolab
intended the layoff of the 94 workers to be temporary, it should have plainly
stated so in the notices it sent to the affected employees and the Department
of Labor and Employment.

Second issue: on exemption on closed shop provision

Metrolab, however, maintains that executive secretaries of the
General Manager and the executive secretaries of the Quality Assurance
Manager, Product Development Manager, Finance Director, Management
System Manager, Human Resources Manager, Marketing Director,
Engineering Manager, Materials Manager and Production Manager, who are
all members of the companys Management Committee should not only be
exempted from the closed-shop provision but should be excluded from
membership in the bargaining unit of the rank and file employees as well on
grounds that their executive secretaries are confidential employees, having
access to vital labor information.
We concur with Metrolab.
Although 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.
The Unions assurances fail to convince. The dangers sought to be
prevented, particularly the threat of conflict of interest and espionage, are
not eliminated by non-membership of Metrolabs executive secretaries or