Sugbuanon V Rural Bank

Sugbuanon Rural Bank v Laguesma
Self organization-mixed membership-
Facts:
Petitioner Sugbuanon Rural Bank, Inc., (SRBI, for brevity) is a duly-registered banking institution with principal office in Cebu City and a branch in
Mandaue City. Private respondent SRBI Association of Professional, Supervisory, Office, and Technical Employees Union (APSOTEU) is a
legitimate labor organization affiliated with the Trade Unions Congress of the Philippines (TUCP).
On October 26, 1993, the union filed a petition for certification election of the supervisory employees of SRBI. It alleged, among others, that: (1)
APSOTEU-TUCP was a labor organization duly-registered with the Labor Department; (2) SRBI employed 5 or more supervisory employees; (3) a
majority of these employees supported the petition: (4) there was no existing collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between any union and SRBI;
and (5) no certification election had been held in SRBI during the past 12 months prior to the petition.
SRBI filed a motion to dismiss the union's petition. It sought to prevent the holding of a certification election on two grounds. First, that the members
of APSOTEU-TUCP were in fact managerial or confidential employees. Thus, following the doctrine in Philips Industrial Development Corporation v.
National Labor Relations Commission,1 they were disqualified from forming, joining, or assisting any labor organization. Petitioner attached the job
descriptions of the employees concerned to its motion. Second, the Association of Labor Unions-Trade Unions Congress of the Philippines or ALU-
TUCP was representing the union. Since ALU-TUCP also sought to represent the rank-and-file employees of SRBI, there was a violation of the
principle of separation of unions enunciated in Atlas Lithographic Services, Inc. v. Laguesma
DOLE undersecretary stated that the question of whether the APSOTEU-TUCP members should be considered as managerial or confidential
employees should not be addressed in the proceedings involving a petition for certification election but best threshed out in other appropriate
proceedings.
Issue: WON the members of the respondent union are managerial employees and/or highly-placed confidential employees, hence prohibited by law
from joining labor organizations and engaging in union activities?
Held: Article 212 (m) of the Labor Code defines the terms "managerial employee" and "supervisory employees" as follows:
Art. 212. Definitions —
(m) "Managerial employee" is one who is 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. 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. All employees not falling within any of the above definitions are considered rank-and-file employees for purposes of this Book (Emphasis
supplied).
Petitioner’s explanation does not state who among the employees has access to information specifically relating to its labor to relations
policies. Even Cashier Patricia Maluya, who serves as the secretary of the bank’s Board of Directors may not be so classified.
Confidential employees are those who (1) assist or act in a confidential capacity, in regard (2) to persons who formulate, determine, and
effectuate management policies [specifically in the field of labor relations].9 The 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 superior officer; and that
officer must handle the prescribed responsibilities relating to labor relations.
Art. 245 of the Labor Code does not directly prohibit confidential employees from engaging in union activities. However, under the doctrine
of necessary implication, the disqualification of managerial employees equally applies to confidential employees. The confidential-employee rule
justifies exclusion of confidential employees because in the normal course of their duties they become aware of management policies relating to
labor relations. It must be stressed, however, that when the employee does not have access to confidential labor relations information, there is no
legal prohibition against confidential employees from forming, assisting, or joining a union.

Sugbuanon V Rural Bank

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sugbuanon V Rural Bank

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sugbuanon V Rural Bank

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sugbuanon Rural Bank v Laguesma

Self organization-mixed membership-

Art. 212. Definitions —

You might also like