FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 169717. March 16, 2011.]

SAMAHANG 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.

DECISION

DEL CASTILLO , J : p

The right to le a petition for certi cation election is accorded to a labor

organization provided that it complies with the requirements of law for proper
registration. The inclusion of supervisory employees in a labor organization seeking to
represent the bargaining unit of rank-and- le employees does not divest it of its status
as a legitimate labor organization. We apply these principles to this case.
EaHATD

This Petition for Review on Certiorari seeks to reverse and set aside the Court of
Appeal's March 15, 2005 Decision 1 in CA-G.R. SP No. 58203, which annulled and set
aside the January 13, 2000 Decision 2 of the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE) in OS-A-6-53-99 (NCR-OD-M-9902-019) and the September 16, 2005 Resolution
3 denying petitioner union's motion for reconsideration.

Factual Antecedents
On February 19, 1999, Samahang Manggagawa sa Charter Chemical Solidarity of
Unions in the Philippines for Empowerment and Reforms (petitioner union) led a
petition for certi cation election among the regular rank-and- le employees of Charter
Chemical and Coating Corporation (respondent company) with the Mediation
Arbitration Unit of the DOLE, National Capital Region.
On April 14, 1999, respondent company led an Answer with Motion to Dismiss 4
on the ground that petitioner union is not a legitimate labor organization because of (1)
failure to comply with the documentation requirements set by law, and (2) the inclusion
of supervisory employees within petitioner union. 5
Med-Arbiter's Ruling
On April 30, 1999, Med-Arbiter Tomas F. Falconitin issued a Decision 6
dismissing the petition for certi cation election. The Med-Arbiter ruled that petitioner
union is not a legitimate labor organization because the Charter Certi cate, "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 and certi ed by the union secretary and attested to by the
union president as required by Section 235 of the Labor Code 7 in relation to Section 1,
Rule VI of Department Order (D.O.) No. 9, series of 1997. The union registration was,
thus, fatally defective.
The Med-Arbiter further held that the list of membership of petitioner union
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 consisted of 12 batchman, mill operator and leadman who performed supervisory
functions. Under Article 245 of the Labor Code, said supervisory employees are
prohibited from joining petitioner union which seeks to represent the rank-and- le
employees of respondent company.
As a result, not being a legitimate labor organization, petitioner union has no right
to file a petition for certification election for the purpose of collective bargaining.
Department of Labor and Employment's Ruling
On July 16, 1999, the DOLE initially issued a Decision 8 in favor of respondent
company dismissing petitioner union's appeal on the ground that the latter's petition
for certi cation election was led out of time. Although the DOLE ruled, contrary to the
ndings of the Med-Arbiter, that the charter certi cate need not be veri ed and that
there was no independent evidence presented to establish respondent company's
claim that some members of petitioner union were holding supervisory positions, the
DOLE sustained the dismissal of the petition for certi cation after it took judicial notice
that another union, i.e., Pinag-isang Lakas Manggagawa sa Charter Chemical and
Coating Corporation, previously led a petition for certi cation election on January 16,
1998. The Decision granting the said petition became final and executory on September
16, 1998 and was remanded for immediate implementation. Under Section 7, Rule XI of
D.O. No. 9, series of 1997, a motion for intervention involving a certi cation election in
an unorganized establishment should be led prior to the nality of the decision calling
for a certi cation election. Considering that petitioner union led its petition only on
February 14, 1999, the same was filed out of time. DaScHC

On motion for reconsideration, however, the DOLE reversed its earlier ruling. In its
January 13, 2000 Decision, the DOLE found that a review of the records indicates that
no certi cation election was previously conducted in respondent company. On the
contrary, the prior certi cation election led by Pinag-isang Lakas Manggagawa sa
Charter Chemical and Coating Corporation was, likewise, denied by the Med-Arbiter
and, on appeal, was dismissed by the DOLE for being led out of time. Hence, there was
no obstacle to the grant of petitioner union's petition for certification election, viz.:
WHEREFORE , the motion for reconsideration is hereby GRANTED and the
decision of this O ce dated 16 July 1999 is MODIFIED to allow the certi cation
election among the regular rank-and- le employees of Charter Chemical and
Coating Corporation with the following choices:

1. Samahang Manggagawa sa Charter Chemical-Solidarity of Unions

in the Philippines for Empowerment and Reform (SMCC-SUPER); and

2. No Union.

Let the records of this case be remanded to the Regional O ce of origin

for the immediate conduct of a certi cation election, subject to the usual pre-
election conference.

SO DECIDED . 9

Court of Appeal's Ruling

On March 15, 2005, the CA promulgated the assailed Decision, viz.:
WHEREFORE , the petition is hereby GRANTED . The assailed Decision
and Resolution dated January 13, 2000 and February 17, 2000 are hereby
[ANNULLED ] and SET ASIDE .
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 SO ORDERED . 1 0

In nullifying the decision of the DOLE, the appellate court gave credence to the ndings
of the Med-Arbiter that petitioner union failed to comply with the documentation
requirements under the Labor Code. It, likewise, upheld the Med-Arbiter's nding that
petitioner union consisted of both rank-and- le and supervisory employees. Moreover,
the CA held that the issues as to the legitimacy of petitioner union may be attacked
collaterally in a petition for certi cation election and the in rmity in the membership of
petitioner union cannot be remedied through the exclusion-inclusion proceedings in a
pre-election conference pursuant to the ruling in Toyota Motor Philippines v. Toyota
Motor Philippines Corporation Labor Union. 1 1 Thus, considering that petitioner union is
not a legitimate labor organization, it has no legal right to le a petition for certi cation
election.
Issues
I

Whether . . . the Honorable Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of

discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction in granting the respondent
[company's] petition for certiorari (CA G.R. No. SP No. 58203) in spite of the fact
that the issues subject of the respondent company['s] petition was already settled
with finality and barred from being re-litigated.

II

Whether . . . the Honorable Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of

discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction in holding that the alleged mixture of
rank-and- le and supervisory employee[s] of petitioner [union's] membership is [a]
ground for the cancellation of petitioner [union's] legal personality and dismissal
of [the] petition for certification election.
III

Whether . . . the Honorable Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of

discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction in holding that the alleged failure to
certify under oath the local charter certi cate issued by its mother federation and
list of the union membership attending the organizational meeting [is a ground]
for the cancellation of petitioner [union's] legal personality as a labor organization
and for the dismissal of the petition for certification election. 1 2
DSHcTC

Petitioner Union's Arguments

Petitioner union claims that the litigation of the issue as to its legal personality to
le the subject petition for certi cation election is barred by the July 16, 1999 Decision
of the DOLE. In this decision, the DOLE ruled that petitioner union complied with all the
documentation requirements and that there was no independent evidence presented to
prove an illegal mixture of supervisory and rank-and- le employees in petitioner union.
After the promulgation of this Decision, respondent company did not move for
reconsideration, thus, this issue must be deemed settled.
Petitioner union further argues that the lack of veri cation of its charter
certi cate and the alleged illegal composition of its membership are not grounds for
the dismissal of a petition for certi cation election under Section 11, Rule XI of D.O. No.
9, series of 1997, as amended, nor are they grounds for the cancellation of a union's
registration under Section 3, Rule VIII of said issuance. It contends that what is required
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 to be certi ed under oath by the local union's secretary or treasurer and attested to by
the local union's president are limited to the union's constitution and by-laws, statement
of the set of officers, and the books of accounts.
Finally, the legal personality of petitioner union cannot be collaterally attacked
but may be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation pursuant to
Section 5, Rule V, Book IV of the Rules to Implement the Labor Code and the doctrine
enunciated in Tagaytay Highlands International Golf Club Incorporated v. Tagaytay
Highlands Employees Union-PTGWO. 1 3
Respondent Company's Arguments
Respondent company asserts that it cannot be precluded from challenging the
July 16, 1999 Decision of the DOLE. The said decision did not attain nality because the
DOLE subsequently reversed its earlier ruling and, from this decision, respondent
company timely filed its motion for reconsideration.
On the issue of lack of veri cation of the charter certi cate, respondent company
notes that Article 235 of the Labor Code and Section 1, Rule VI of the Implementing
Rules of Book V, as amended by D.O. No. 9, series of 1997, expressly requires that the
charter certificate be certified under oath.
It also contends that petitioner union is not a legitimate labor organization
because its composition is a mixture of supervisory and rank-and- le employees in
violation of Article 245 of the Labor Code. Respondent company maintains that the
ruling in Toyota Motor Philippines vs. Toyota Motor Philippines Labor Union 1 4
continues to be good case law. Thus, the illegal composition of petitioner union nulli es
its legal personality to le the subject petition for certi cation election and its legal
personality may be collaterally attacked in the proceedings for a petition for
certification election as was done here. CAaSHI

Our Ruling
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 union's 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 insu cient to establish that there was an illegal mixture of
supervisory and rank-and- le employees in its membership. Nonetheless, the petition
for certi cation election was dismissed on the ground that another union had
previously led a petition for certi cation 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. 1 5 From 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 le
the subject petition for certification election.
The July 16, 1999 Decision of the DOLE, therefore, never attained nality because
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 the parties timely moved for reconsideration. The issue then as to the legal personality
of petitioner union to le the certi cation 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 union's
secretary or treasurer and attested to by
its president.
Preliminarily, we must note that Congress enacted Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9481
16 which took effect on June 14, 2007. 1 7 This 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.
6 7 1 5 , 1 8 amending Book V of the Labor Code, and the rules and regulations 1 9
implementing R.A. No. 6715, as amended by D.O. No. 9, 2 0 series of 1997) pursuant to
our ruling in Republic v. Kawashima Textile Mfg., Philippines, Inc. 2 1
In 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 Certi cate, 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 certi cate issued by the federation or national union
indicating the creation or establishment of the local/chapter;
(b) The names of the local/chapter's o cers, 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 [are] the same as [those] of the
federation or national union, this fact shall be indicated accordingly.IDTcHa

All the foregoing supporting requirements shall be certi ed 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 O ce or Bureau of Labor Relations in order to register a labor organization.
As to the charter certi cate, the above-quoted rule indicates that it should be executed
under oath. Petitioner union concedes and the records con rm that its charter
certi cate was not executed under oath. However, in San Miguel Corporation (Mandaue
Packaging Products Plants) v. Mandaue Packing Products Plants-San Miguel
Corporation Monthlies Rank-and-File Union-FFW (MPPP-SMPP-SMAMRFU-FFW), 2 2
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 which was decided under the auspices of D.O. No. 9, Series of 1997, we ruled —
In San Miguel Foods-Cebu B-Meg Feed Plant v. Hon. Laguesma, 331 Phil.
356 (1996), the Court ruled that it was not necessary for the charter certificate to
be certi ed and attested by the local/chapter o cers. Id. While this ruling was
based on the interpretation of the previous Implementing Rules
provisions which were supplanted by the 1997 amendments , we believe
that the same doctrine obtains in this case . Considering that the charter
certi cate is prepared and issued by the national union and not the local/chapter,
it does not make sense to have the local/chapter's o cers . . . certify or
attest to a document which they had no hand in the preparation of. 2 3
(Emphasis supplied)

In accordance with this ruling, petitioner union's charter certi cate need not be
executed under oath. Consequently, it validly acquired the status of a legitimate labor
organization upon submission of (1) its charter certi cate, 2 4 (2) the names of its
o cers, their addresses, and its principal o ce, 2 5 and (3) its constitution and by-laws
2 6 — 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- le and
supervisory employees. However, petitioner union sought to represent the bargaining
unit consisting of rank-and- le employees. Under Article 245 2 7 of the Labor Code,
supervisory employees are not eligible for membership in a labor organization of rank-
and- le employees. Thus, the appellate court ruled that petitioner union cannot be
considered a legitimate labor organization pursuant to Toyota Motor Philippines v.
Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Labor Union 2 8 (hereinafter Toyota).
Preliminarily, we note that petitioner union questions the factual ndings 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 descriptions 2 9 of 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 de nition of supervisory employees under Article
212 (m) 3 0 of 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. TDCAHE

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
court's reliance on Toyota is misplaced in view of this Court's subsequent ruling in
Republic v. Kawashima Textile Mfg., Philippines, Inc. 3 1 (hereinafter Kawashima). In
Kawashima, we explained at length how and why the Toyota doctrine 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- le
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 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 de ciency by introducing the
following amendment to Rule II (Registration of Unions):
"Sec. 1. Who may join unions. — . . . Supervisory employees
and security guards shall not be eligible for membership in a
labor organization of the rank-and- le 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-
le bargaining unit, upon the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6715, shall
remain in that unit . . . ." (Emphasis supplied.)

and Rule V (Representation Cases and Internal-Union Con icts) of the

Omnibus Rules, viz.:
"Sec. 1. Where to le . — A petition for certi cation election may
be led with the Regional O ce which has jurisdiction over the principal
office of the employer. The petition shall be in writing and under oath.
Sec. 2. Who may le . — 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:
xxx xxx xxx
(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- le 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 le a
petition for certification election.

Thus, when the issue of the effect of mingling was brought to the fore in
Toyota, 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- le 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-
le and supervisory employees cannot possess any of the rights
of a legitimate labor organization, including the right to le a
petition for certi cation election for the purpose of collective
bargaining . It becomes necessary, therefore, anterior to the granting
of an order allowing a certi cation 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 . EaIDAT

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 xxx xxx xxx
In 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 le a petition
for certification election." (Emphasis supplied)
In Dunlop, in which the labor organization that led a petition for
certi cation election was one for supervisory employees, but in which the
membership included rank-and- le employees, the Court reiterated that such labor
organization had no legal right to le a certi cation election to represent a
bargaining unit composed of supervisors for as long as it counted rank-and- le
employees among its members.
It should be emphasized that the petitions for certi cation election
involved in Toyota and Dunlop were led 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). Speci cally, the requirement under Sec. 2(c) of the 1989 Amended
Omnibus Rules — that the petition for certi cation election indicate that the
bargaining unit of rank-and- le 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 XI
Certification Elections

xxx xxx xxx

Sec. 4. Forms and contents of petition. — The petition shall be
in writing and under oath and shall contain, among others, the following: . .
. (c) The description of the bargaining unit.

In Pagpalain Haulers, Inc. v. Trajano, the Court had occasion to uphold the
validity of the 1997 Amended Omnibus Rules, although the speci c 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 O ce or to the Bureau two (2) copies of the
following: a) a charter certi cate issued by the federation or national union
indicating the creation or establishment of the local/chapter; (b) the names
of the local/chapter's o cers, their addresses, and the principal o ce 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 certi ed under
oath by the Secretary or the Treasurer of the local/chapter and attested to
by its President."

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 which does not require that, for its creation and registration, a local or
chapter submit a list of its members.
Then came Tagaytay Highlands Int'l. Golf Club, Inc. v. Tagaytay Highlands
Employees Union-PGTWO in which the core issue was whether mingling affects
the legitimacy of a labor organization and its right to le a petition for
certi cation election. This time, given the altered legal milieu, the Court
abandoned the view in Toyota and Dunlop and reverted to its pronouncement in
Lopez that while there is a prohibition against the mingling of supervisory and
rank-and- le 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- le
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. ATcaEH

In San 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 is Air Philippines Corporation v. Bureau of Labor
Relations, which involved a petition for cancellation of union registration led by
the employer in 1999 against a rank-and- le labor organization on the ground of
mixed membership: the Court therein reiterated its ruling in Tagaytay Highlands
that the inclusion in a union of disquali ed 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 in Tagaytay Highlands, San Miguel
and Air Philippines, had already set the tone for it. Toyota and Dunlop no longer
hold sway in the present altered state of the law and the rules. 3 2 [Underline
supplied]

The applicable law and rules in the instant case are the same as those in
Kawashima because the present petition for certi cation election was led in 1999
when D.O. No. 9, series of 1997, was still in effect. Hence, Kawashima applies 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 in Kawashima:
Except when it is requested to bargain collectively, an employer is a mere
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 bystander to any petition for certi cation 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 ling a motion to dismiss or an
appeal from it; not even a mere allegation that some employees participating in a
petition for certi cation election are actually managerial employees will lend an
employer legal personality to block the certi cation 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. 3 3

WHEREFORE , the petition is GRANTED . The March 15, 2005 Decision and
September 16, 2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 58203 are
REVERSED and SET ASIDE . The January 13, 2000 Decision of the Department of
Labor and Employment in OS-A-6-53-99 (NCR-OD-M-9902-019) is REINSTATED . cTSDAH

No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED .
Corona, C.J., Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-de Castro and Perez, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 29-36; penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe and concurred in by
Associate Justices Elvi John S. Asuncion and Hakim S. Abdulwahid.
2.Id. at 74-75.
3.Id. at 38.
4.Id. at 214-223.

5.Id. at 215-220.
6.Id. at 40-50.
7.PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 442, as amended.
8.Rollo, pp. 52-54.
9.Id. at 75.

10.Id. at 36.
11.335 Phil. 1045 (1997).
12.Rollo, pp. 12-13.
13.443 Phil. 841 (2003).
14.Supra note 11.

15.Upon reconsideration, the DOLE noted that the other union which allegedly filed a prior
petition for certification election was prevented from doing so because its petition for
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 certification election was filed out of time. Thus, there was no obstacle to the conduct of
a certification election in respondent company.
16."An Act Strengthening the Workers' Constitutional Right to Self-Organization, Amending for
the Purpose Presidential Decree No. 442, as Amended, Otherwise Known as the Labor
Code of the Philippines."
17.Republic v. Kawashima Textile Mfg., Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 160352, July 23, 2008, 559
SCRA 386, 396.
18."An Act to Extend Protection to Labor, Strengthen the Constitutional Rights of Workers to
Self-Organization, Collective Bargaining and Peaceful Concerted Activities, and Foster
Industrial Peace and Harmony." Effective March 21, 1989.
19.Approved on May 24, 1989.
20.Effective: June 21, 1997.
21.Supra note 17 at 396-397.
22.504 Phil. 376 (2005).

23.Id. at 400.
24.DOLE records, p. 51.
25.Id. at 43-44.

26.Id. at 25-40.
27.Article 245. Ineligibility of Managerial Employees to Join Any Labor Organization; Right of
Supervisory Employees. — . . . Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for
membership in the collective bargaining unit of the rank-and-file employees but may join,
assist or form separate collective bargaining units and/or legitimate labor organizations
of their own. . . .
28.Supra note 11.

29.Respondent company claimed that the batchman, mill operator and leadman perform,
among others, the following functions:
Prepares, coordinates and supervises work schedules and activities of subordinates or
helpers in their respective area of responsibility.

1. Recommends the reduction, increase, transfer and number of employees assigned to

them.
2. Sees to it that daily production schedules and outputs are carried on time.

3. Coordinates with their respective managers the needed raw materials and the quality
of finished products. (Rollo, p. 220)
30.Article 212 (m) of the Labor Code, states in part: "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. . . ."

31.Supra note 17.

32.Id. at 402-407.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 33.Id. at 408.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com