THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 96663. August 10, 1999.]

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

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

[G.R. No. 103300. August 10, 1999.]

PEPSI COLA PRODUCTS PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE

SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND HON. CELENIO N. DAING,
in his capacity as Med-Arbiter Labor Regional Office No. X, Cagayan de
Oro City, CAGAYAN DE ORO PEPSI COLA SUPERVISORS UNION
(UOEF), respondents.

Fernandez Zarsadia and Associates for Pepsi-Cola Products Phil. Inc.

The Solicitor General for respondents.
Fermento P. Dablo and Gregorio G. Borja for Cagayan de Oro Pepsi-Cola
Supervisors Union.

SYNOPSIS

The Pepsi-Cola Employees Organization-UOEF (Union) filed a petition for

certification election with the Med-Arbiter seeking to be the exclusive bargaining agent
of supervisors of Pepsi-Cola Philippines, Inc. (PEPSI). The Med-Arbiter granted the
Petition, with the explicit statement that it was an affiliate of Union de Obreros
Estivadores de Filipinas (federation)' together with two (2) rank and file unions, Pepsi-
Cola Labor Unity (PCLU) and Pepsi-Cola Employees Union of the Philippines (PEUP).
Pepsi filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations a petition to Set Aside, Cancel and/or
Revoke Charter Affiliation of the Union on the ground that (a) members of the Union
were managers, and (b) a supervisors' union can not affiliate with a federation whose
members include the rank and file union of the same company. Pepsi presented a
motion to re-open the case since it was not furnished with a copy of the Petition for
Certification Election. Pepsi filed a Notice of Appeal and Memorandum of Appeal with
the Secretary of Labor, questioning the setting of the certification election on the said
date and five days after. Pepsi found its way to this Court via the present petition for
certiorari.
The Court dismissed the case for failure to sufficiently show that the questioned
judgment was tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The Court found merit in the
submission of the Office of the Solicitor General that the designation should be
reconciled with the actual job description of the subject employees. The mere fact that
an employee was designated manager does not necessarily make him one. Otherwise,
there would be an absurd situation where one can be given the title just to be deprived
of the right to be a member of a union. The petitions under consideration were
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 dismissed; however, Credit and Collection Managers and Accounting Managers were
highly confidential employees not eligible for membership in a supervisors' union.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; ACTIONS; DISMISSAL OF CASES; MOOT AND

ACADEMIC, AS A GROUND; WHEN PROPER; CASE AT BAR. — In a long line of
cases (Narciso Nakpil, et al. vs. Hon. Crisanto Aragon, et al., G.R. No. L-24087,
January 22, 1980, 95 SCRA 85; Toribio vs. Bidin, et al., G.R. No. L-37960, February 28,
1980, 96 SCRA 361; Gumaua vs. Espino, G.R. No. L-36188-37586, February 29, 1980,
96 SCRA 402), the Court dismissed the petition for being moot and academic. In the
case of F.C. Fisher vs. Yangco Steamship Co ., March 31, 1915, the Court held: "It is
unnecessary, however to indulge in academic discussion of a moot question. . . The
action would have been dismissed at any time on a showing of the facts as they were.
The question left for the court was a moot one. Its Resolution would have been useless.
Its judgment would have been impossible of execution . . ." However, in the case of
University of San Agustin, Inc., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al ., 230 SCRA 761, 770,
the court resolved the case, ruling that "even if a case were moot and academic, a
statement of the governing principle is appropriate in the resolution of dismissal for the
guidance not only of the parties but of others similarly situated. . ."
2. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; LABOR CODE; LABOR
ORGANIZATION; NATIONAL LABOR FEDERATION OF UNIONS; LOCAL UNION OF
SUPERVISORS MAY NOT JOIN UNION OF RANK AND FILE EMPLOYEES;
RATIONALE. — In Atlas Lithographic Services, Inc. vs. Laguesma, 205 SCRA 12,
[1992] decided by the Third Division with J. Gutierrez, Jr., as ponente and JJ. Feliciano,
Bidin, Romero and now Chief Justice Davide, Jr., as members it was ratiocinated: ". . .
Thus, if the intent of the law is to avoid a situation where supervisors would merge with
the rank-and-file or where the supervisors' labor organization would represent
conflicting interests, then a local supervisors' union should not be allowed to affiliate
with the national federation of union of rank-and-file employees where that federation
actively participates in union activity in the company. . . The prohibition against a
supervisors' union joining a local union of rank and file is replete with jurisprudence. The
Court emphasizes that the limitation is not confined to a case of supervisors' wanting to
join a rank-and-file union. The prohibition extends to a supervisors' local union applying
for membership in a national federation the members of which include local unions of
rank and file employees. The intent of the law is clear especially where, as in this case
at bar, the supervisors will be co-mingling with those employees whom they directly
supervise in their own bargaining unit."
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES; WHEN DISQUALIFIED TO JOIN
LABOR UNION OF RANK AND FILE EMPLOYEES; RATIONALE. — As regards the
issue of whether or not confidential employees can join the labor union of the rank and
file, what was held in the case of National Association of Trade Unions (NATU) —
Republic Planters Bank Supervisors Chapter vs. Hon. R. D. Torres, et al., G.R. No.
93468, December 29, 1994, applies to this case. Citing Bulletin Publishing Corporation
vs. Sanchez, 144 SCRA 628, 635; Golden Farms vs. NLRC, 175 SCRA 471, and Pier 8
Arrastre and Stevedoring Services, Inc. vs. Hon. Nieves Roldan-Confessor, et al., G.R.
No. 110854, February 14, 1995, the Court ruled: ". . . A confidential employee is one
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 entrusted with confidence on delicate matters, or with the custody, handling, or care
and protection of the employer's property. While Art. 245 of the Labor Code singles out
managerial employee as ineligible to join, assist or form any labor organization, under
the doctrine of necessary implication, confidential employees are similarly disqualified.
This doctrine states that what is implied in a statute is as much a part thereof as that
which is expressed, as elucidated in several case; the latest of which is Chua vs. Civil
Service Commission where we said: No statute can be enacted that can provide all the
details involved in its application. There is always an omission that may not meet a
particular situation. What is thought, at the time of the enactment, to be an all
embracing legislation maybe inadequate to provide for the unfolding events of the
future. So-called gaps in the law develop as the law is enforced One of the rules of
statutory construction used to fill in the gap is the doctrine of necessary implication . . .
Every statute is understood, by implication, to contain all such provisions as may be
necessary to effectuate its object and purpose, or to make effective rights, powers,
privileges or jurisdiction which it grants, including all such collateral and subsidiary
consequences as may be fairly and logically inferred from its terms. Ex necessitate
legis . . . In applying the doctrine of necessary implication, we took into consideration
the rationale behind the disqualification of managerial employees expressed in Bulletin
Publishing Corporation vs. Sanchez, thus ". . . 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." Stated
differently, in the collective bargaining process, managerial employees are supposed to
be on the side of the employer, to act as its representatives, and to see to it that its
interest are well protected. The employer is not assured of such protection if these
employees themselves are union members. Collective bargaining in such a situation
can become one-sided. It is the same reason that impelled this Court to consider the
position of confidential employees as included in the disqualification found in Art. 245 as
if the disqualification of confidential employees were written in the provision. If
confidential employees could unionize in order to bargain for advantages for
themselves, then they could be governed by their own motives rather than the interest
of the employers. Moreover, unionization of confidential employees for the purpose of
collective bargaining would mean the extension of the law to persons or individuals who
are supposed to act "in the interest of" the employers. It is not farfetched that in the
course of collective bargaining, they might jeopardize that interest which they are duty
bound to protect. Along the same line of reasoning we held in Golden Farms, Inc. vs.
Ferrer-Calleja reiterated in Philips Industrial Development, Inc., NLRC, that "confidential
employees such as accounting personnel, radio and telegraph operators who, having
access to confidential information, may become the source of undue advantage. Said
employee(s) may act as spy or spies of either party to a collective bargaining
agreement." cTEICD

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; MEMBERSHIP IS DETERMINED BY THE NATURE OF

FUNCTIONS AND NOT BY THE NOMENCLATURE OF THE JOB GIVEN. —
Designation should be reconciled with the actual job description of subject employees.
A careful scrutiny of their job description indicates that they don't lay down company
policies. Theirs is not a final determination of the company policies since they have to
report to their respective superior. The mere fact that an employee is designated
manager does not necessarily make him one. Otherwise, there would be an absurd
situation where one can be given the title just to be deprived of the right to be a member
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 of a union. In the case of National Steel Corporation vs. Laguesma, G.R. No. 103743,
January 29, 1996, it was stressed that: "What is essential is the nature of the
employee's function and not the nomenclature or title given to the job which determines
whether the employee has rank and file or managerial status, or whether he is a
supervisory employee."

5. ID.; ID.; CERTIFICATION ELECTIONS; WHEN TECHNICAL RULES OF

EVIDENCE DO NOT APPLY. — Anent the issue of whether or not the Petition to
cancel/revoke registration is a prejudicial question to the petition for certification
election, the following ruling in the case of Association of the Court of Appeals
Employees (ACAS) vs. Hon. Pura Ferrer-Calleja, in her capacity as Director, Bureau of
Labor Relations, et al.; 203 SCRA 597, 598, [1991], is in point, to wit: . . . It is a well-
settled rule that "a certification proceedings is not a litigation in the sense that the term
is ordinarily understood, but an investigation of a non-adversarial and fact finding
character." (Associated Labor Union (ALU) vs. Ferrer-Calleja , 179 SCRA 127 [1989];
Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corporation vs. NLRC , 183 SCRA 451 [1990]).
Thus, the technical rules of evidence do not apply if the decision to grant it proceeds
from an examination of the sufficiency of the petition as well as a careful look into the
arguments contained in the position papers and other documents. At any rate, the Court
applies the established rule correctly followed by the public respondent that an order to
hold a certification election is proper despite the pendency of the petition for
cancellation of the registration certificate of the respondent union. The rationale for this
is that at the time the respondent union filed its petition, it still had the legal personality
to perform such act absent an order directing the cancellation. . ."

DECISION

PURISIMA, J : p

These are petitions for certiorari relating to three (3) cases filed with the Med-
Arbiter, to wit: MED ARB ROX Case No. R100-9101-RU-002 for Certification Election
filed by Pepsi Cola Supervisors Union-UOEF (Union), MED ARB Case No. R1000-
9102-RU-008, Re: Petition to Set Aside, Cancel and/or Revoke the Charter Affiliation of
the Union, and MED-ARB ROX Case No. R1000-9104-RU-012, for Cancellation of
Registration Certificate No. 11492-LC in favor of the Union. cdll

G.R. No. 96663

The facts that matter can be culled as follows:
Sometime in June 1990, the Pepsi-Cola Employees Organization-UOEF (Union)
filed a petition for certification election with the Med-Arbiter seeking to be the exclusive
bargaining agent of supervisors of Pepsi-Cola Philippines, Inc. (PEPSI).
On July 12, 1990, the Med-Arbiter granted the Petition, with the explicit statement
that it was an affiliate of Union de Obreros Estivadores de Filipinas (federation) together
with two (2) rank and file unions, Pepsi-Cola Labor Unity (PCLU) and Pepsi-Cola
Employees Union of the Philippines (PEUP). cda

On July 23, 1990, PEPSI filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations a petition to Set
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 Aside, Cancel and/or Revoke Charter Affiliation of the Union, entitled PCPPI v. PCEU-
UOEF and docketed as Case No. 725-90, on the grounds that (a) the members of the
Union were managers and (b) a supervisors' union can not affiliate with a federation
whose members include the rank and file union of the same company.
On August 29, 1990, PEPSI presented a motion to re-open the case since it was
not furnished with a copy of the Petition for Certification Election.
On September 4, 1990, PEPSI submitted its position paper to the BLR in Case
No. 725-90.
On September 21, 1990, PEPSI received summons to appear at the pre-trial
conference set on September 25, 1990 but which the hearing officer rescheduled on
October 21, 1990. cdrep

On October 12, 1990, PEPSI filed a Notice of Appeal and Memorandum of

Appeal with the Secretary of Labor, questioning the setting of the certification election
on the said date and five (5) days after. It also presented an urgent Ex-Parte Motion to
Suspend the Certification Election, which motion was granted on October 18, 1990.
On November 12, 1990, the Secretary of Labor denied the appeal and Motion for
Reconsideration. Even as the Petition to Cancel, Revoke and Suspend Union Charter
Certificate was pending before the BLR, PEPSI found its way to this Court via the
present petition for certiorari.
On February 6, 1991, the Court granted the prayer for temporary restraining
order and/or preliminary injunction.
The pivot of inquiry here is: whether or not a supervisors' union can affiliate with
the same Federation of which two (2) rank and file unions are likewise members,
without violating Article 245 of the Labor Code (PD 442), as amended, by Republic Act
6715, which provides: llcd

"ARTICLE 245. Ineligibility of managerial employees to join any labor

organization; right of supervisory employees. — Managerial employees are not
eligible to join, assist or form any labor organization. Supervisory employees shall
not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file
employees but may join, assist or form separate labor organizations of their
own."

In its Comment dated March 19, 1991, the Federation argued that:
"The pertinent portion of Article 245 of the Labor Code states that:
"Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor
organization of the rank and file employees but may join, assist or form separate
labor organization of their own."
This provision of law does not prohibit a local union composed of
supervisory employees from being affiliated to a federation which has local
unions with rank-and-file members as affiliates. LLjur

xxx xxx xxx

. . . the Petition to Cancel, Revoke or Set Aside the Charter Certificate of

the private respondent is anchored on the alleged ground that certain managerial
employees are included as members thereof. The grounds for the cancellation of
the registration certificate of a labor organization are provided in Section 7 of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 Rule II, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, and the
inclusion of managerial employees is not one of the grounds. . . . (in this case,
the private respondent herein) remains to be a legitimate labor organization." 1

On April 8, 1991, the Secretary of Labor and Employment, through the Office of
the Solicitor General, sent in a Comment, alleging inter alia, that:
". . . under Article 259 of the New Labor Code, only orders of the Med-
Arbiter can be appealed through the Secretary of Labor and only on the ground
that the rules and regulations for the conduct of the certification election have
been violated. The Order of the Representation Officer is "interlocutory" and not
appealable. . . .
. . . until and unless there is a final order cancelling its certificate of
registration or charter certificate, a labor organization remains to be a legitimate
labor organization entitled to exercise all the rights and duties accorded to it by
the Labor Code including the right to be certified as a bargaining representative. .
.. LLjur

. . . Public respondent cannot be deemed to have committed grave abuse

of discretion with respect to an issue that was never presented before it for
resolution. . . .
Article 245 of the New Labor
Code does not preclude the
supervisor's union and the
rank-and-file union from
being affiliated with the
same federation.
xxx xxx xxx
A federation of local union is not the labor organization referred to in
Article 245 but only becomes entitled to all the rights enjoyed by the labor
organization (at the company level) when it has complied with the registration
requirements found in Articles 234 and 237. Hence, what is prohibited by Article
245 is membership of supervisory employees in a labor union (at the company
level) of the rank and file. . . .
. . . In other words, the affiliation of the supervisory employee's union with
the same federation with which the rank and file employees union is affiliated did
not make the supervisory employees members of the rank and file employee's
union and vice versa." 2 . . .

PEPSI, in its Reply dated May 7, 1991, asserted: LLpr

"It is our humble contention that a final determination of the Petition to Set-
Aside, Cancel, Revoke Charter Union Affiliation should first be disposed of before
granting the Petition for the Conduct of Certification Election. To allow the
conduct of the certification election to proceed would make any decision arrived
at by the Bureau of Labor Relations useless inasmuch as the same would
necessarily be rendered moot and academic." 3

On June 7, 1991, petitioner again filed a Supplemental Reply stressing:

"It is likewise stressed that officials of both the PCLU and PEUP are top
ranking officers of UOEF, the federation of supervisors' union, to wit:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 POSITION IN RANK AND FILE UNION POSITION IN FEDERATION

1. Rogelio de la Cruz PCLU-President General Vice President

2. Felix Gatela PEUP-President General Treasurer
3. Carlito Epino PCLU Board Member Educational Research Director
xxx xxx xxx
The respondent supervisory union could do indirectly what it could not do
directly as the simple expedient of affiliating with UOEF would negate the
manifest intent and letter of the law that supervisory employees can only "join,
assist or form separate labor organizations of their own" and cannot "be eligible
for membership in a labor organization of the rank and file employees." 4 cdrep

On August 6, 1991, the Secretary of Labor and Employment filed a Rejoinder,

claiming thus:
". . . an employer has no legal standing to question the validity of a
certification election.
. . . For this reason, the Supreme Court has consistently held that, as a
rule, a certification election is the sole and exclusive concern of the employees
and that the employer is definitely an intruder or a mere bystander (Consolidated
Farms vs. Noriel, L-47752, July 31, 1978, 84 SCRA 469; Filipino Metals
Corporation vs. Ople, L-43861, September 4, 1981, 107 SCRA 211; Trade
Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS) vs. Trajano No. L-61153,
January 17, 1983, 120 SCRA 64).
xxx xxx xxx

In Adamson & Adamson, Inc. vs. CIR No. L-35120, January 31, 1984, 127
SCRA 268, the Supreme Court (then dealing with the interpretation of Section 3
of the Industrial Peace Act, from which Section 245 of the Labor Code was
derived) grappled with the issue in the case at bar. It held that,
'There is nothing in the provisions of the Industrial Peace Act which
provides that a duly registered local union affiliating with a national union
or federation loses its legal personality, or its independence.'
dctai

xxx xxx xxx

However, there is absolutely nothing in the Labor Code that prohibits a
federation from representing or exercising influence over its affiliates. On the
contrary, this is precisely the reason why federations are formed and are allowed
by law to exist." 5

On November 8, 1991, the Union also filed a Rejoinder.

On December 9, 1991, the Court resolved to DISMISS the case for "failure to
sufficiently show that the questioned judgment is tainted with grave abuse of discretion."
In a Resolution dated March 2, 1992, the Second Division of the Court resolved
to grant the motion for reconsideration interposed on January 28, 1992.
G.R. No. 103300
What are assailed in this case is Med-Arbiter Order dated May 23, 1991 and the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 Decision and Order of the Secretary of Labor and Employment, dated October 4, 1991
and December 12, 1991, respectively. cda

The decretal portion of the Med-Arbiter Order under attack, reads:

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, an order is hereby issued:
1. Dismissing MED ARB ROX CASE NO. R1000-919104-RU-012 and
R1000-9102-RU-008 for lack of merit; and
2. Ordering the conduct of a Certification Election to be participated by and
among the supervisory workers of the respondent company, Pepsi-Cola Products
Philippines, Inc. at its plant at Tin-ao, Cagayan de Oro City, including all the
satellite warehouse within the territorial coverage and control of the Cagayan de
Oro Pepsi-Cola Plant. The choices are as follows:
1. Cagayan de Oro Pepsi-Cola Supervisors Union (U.O.E.P.)

2. No union
The parties are directed to attend a pre-election conference on June 10,
1991, 2:30 p.m. at the Regional Office to determine the qualification of the voters
and to thresh out the mechanics of the election. Respondent/employer is directed
to submit five (5) copies of the names of the rank and file workers taken from the
payroll on October 1-31, 1991, alphabetically arranged (sic) indicating their
names and positions and dates of employment and to bring the aforementioned
payroll during the pre-election conference for verification purposes." 6 . . .prLL

The supervisory employees of the Union are:

POSITION
1. Felipe Valdehueza Route Manager
2. Gerberto Vertudazo C & C Manager
3. Paul Mendoza Sales Service Department Manager
4. Gilberto Emano, Jr. Route Manager

5. Jaime Huliganga Chief Checker

6. Elias Edgama, Sr. Accounting Manager
7. Romanico Ramos Route Manager
8. Raul Yacapin Route Manager

9. Jovenal Albaque Route Manager

10. Fulvio Narciso Route Manager
11. Apolinario Opiniano Route Manager
12. Alfredo Panas Route Manager
13. Simplicio Nelie Route Manager

14. Arthur Rodriguez Route Manager

15. Marco Ilano Warehouse Operations Manager and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 16. Deodoro Ramos Maintenance Manager

On June 6, 1991, PEPSI appealed the said Order to the Secretary of Labor and
Employment on the ground of grave abuse of discretion, docketed as Case No. OS-A-
232-91.
On October 4, 1991, the Secretary modified the appealed decision, ruling thus:
"WHEREFORE, the Order of the Med-Arbiter dated 23 May 1991 is
hereby modified to the effect that MED ARB ROX Case No. R1000-9104-RU-012
and R1000-9102-RU-008 are hereby referred to the Office of the Regional
Director which has jurisdiction over these cases. The call for certification election
among the supervisory workers of the Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. at its
plant at Tin-ao, Cagayan de Oro City is hereby sustained." 7 prcd

On October 19, 1991, PEPSI presented a motion for reconsideration of the

aforesaid Order but the same was denied on December 12, 1991.
Meanwhile, the BLR issued Registration Certificate No. 11492-LC in favor of the
Union. Dissatisfied therewith, PEPSI brought the instant petition for certiorari,
contending that:
"PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION IN RULING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT'S OFFICERS AND
MEMBERS ARE NOT MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEES;
PRIVATE RESPONDENT IS PROHIBITED FROM AFFILIATING ITSELF
WITH A FEDERATION ALREADY AFFILIATED WITH THE RANK AND FILE
UNION; cdll

PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE OF (SIC) ABUSE OF

DISCRETION IN RULING THAT THE INSTITUTION OF A PETITION FOR
CANCELLATION OF UNION REGISTRATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A
PREJUDICIAL QUESTION TO A PETITION CERTIFICATION ELECTION." 8

The petitions must fail for want of merit.

At the outset, it must be stressed that on September 1, 1992, there was a
Resolution of the Union withdrawing from the Federation, to wit:
"BE IT RESOLVED, as it is hereby RESOLVED, that this UNION
WITHDRAW, as it hereby WITHDRAWS its affiliation from the Union de Obreros
Estivadores de Filipinas, and at the same time, give our thanks to the said
federation for its help and guidance rendered to this Union in the past." 9
prLL

The issue in G.R. No. 96663, whether or not the supervisors union can be
affiliated with a Federation with two (2) rank and file unions directly under the
supervision of the former, has thus become moot and academic in view of the Union's
withdrawal from the federation.
In a long line of cases (Narciso Nakpil, et al., vs. Hon. Crisanto Aragon, et al .,
G.R. No. L-24087, January 22, 1980, 95 SCRA 85; Toribio v. Bidin, et al ., G.R. No. L-
37960, February 28, 1980, 96 SCRA 361; Gumaua v. Espino, G .R. No. L-36188-37586
February 29, 1980, 96 SCRA 402), the Court dismissed the petition for being moot and
academic. In the case of F.C. Fisher v. Yangco Steamship Co ., March 31, 1915, the
Court held:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 "It is unnecessary, however to indulge in academic discussion of a moot
question. . . .

. . . The action would have been dismissed at any time on a showing of the
facts as they were. The question left for the court was a moot one. Its Resolution
would have been useless. Its judgment would have been impossible of execution
. . . ." dctai

However, in the case of University of San Agustin, Inc., et al. vs. Court of
Appeals, et al., the court resolved the case, ruling that "even if a case were moot and
academic, a statement of the governing principle is appropriate in the resolution of
dismissal for the guidance not only of the parties but of others similarly situated. . . ." 10
In Atlas Lithographic Services, Inc. v. Laguesma, 205 SCRA 12, [1992] decided
by the Third Division with J. Gutierrez, Jr., as ponente and JJ. Feliciano, Bidin, Romero
and now Chief Justice Davide, Jr., as members it was ratiocinated:
"xxx xxx xxx
Thus, if the intent of the law is to avoid a situation where supervisors
would merge with the rank-and-file or where the supervisors' labor organization
would represent conflicting interests, then a local supervisors' union should not
be allowed to affiliate with the national federation of union of rank-and-file
employees where that federation actively participates in union activity in the
company. LLjur

xxx xxx xxx

The prohibition against a supervisors' union joining a local union of rank
and file is replete with jurisprudence. The Court emphasizes that the limitation is
not confined to a case of supervisors' wanting to join a rank-and-file union. The
prohibition extends to a supervisors' local union applying for membership in a
national federation the members of which include local unions of rank and file
employees. The intent of the law is clear especially where, as in this case at bar,
the supervisors will be co-mingling with those employees whom they directly
supervise in their own bargaining unit."

Anent the issue of whether or not the Petition to cancel/revoke registration is a

prejudicial question to the petition for certification election, the following ruling in the
case of Association of the Court of Appeals Employees (ACAE) vs. Hon. Pura Ferrer-
Calleja, in her capacity as Director, Bureau of Labor Relations et. al., 203 SCRA 597,
598, [1991], is in point, to wit:
. . . It is a well-settled rule that "a certification proceedings is not a litigation
in the sense that the term is ordinarily understood, but an investigation of a non-
adversarial and fact finding character." (Associated Labor Unions (ALU) v. Ferrer-
Calleja, 179 SCRA 127 [1989]; Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corporation
v. NLRC, 183 SCRA 451 [1990]. Thus, the technical rules of evidence do not
apply if the decision to grant it proceeds from an examination of the sufficiency of
the petition as well as a careful look into the arguments contained in the position
papers and other documents. llcd

"At any rate, the Court applies the established rule correctly followed by
the public respondent that an order to hold a certification election is proper
despite the pendency of the petition for cancellation of the registration certificate
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 of the respondent union. The rationale for this is that at the time the respondent
union filed its petition, it still had the legal personality to perform such act absent
an order directing the cancellation.
xxx xxx xxx"
As regards the issue of whether or not confidential employees can join the labor
union of the rank and file, what was held in the case of National Association of Trade
Unions (NATU) — Republic Planters Bank Supervisors Chapter vs. Hon. R. D. Torres,
et al., G.R. No. 93468, December 29, 1994, applies to this case. Citing Bulletin
Publishing Corporation vs. Sanchez, 144 SCRA 628, 635, Golden Farms vs. NLRC ,
175 SCRA 471, and Pier 8 Arrastre and Stevedoring Services, Inc. vs. Hon. Nieves
Roldan-Confessor et al., G.R. No. 110854, February 14, 1995, the Court ruled:
". . . A confidential employee is one entrusted with confidence on delicate matters, or
with the custody, handling, or care and protection of the employer's property. While Art. 245
of the Labor Code singles out managerial employee as ineligible to join, assist or form any
labor organization, under the doctrine of necessary implication, confidential employees are
similarly disqualified. This doctrine states that what is implied in a statute is as much a part
thereof as that which is expressed, as elucidated in several case; the latest of which is Chua
v. Civil Service Commission where we said: llcd

No statute can be enacted that can provide all the details involved
in its application. There is always an omission that may not meet a
particular situation. What is thought, at the time of the enactment, to be an
all embracing legislation maybe inadequate to provide for the unfolding
events of the future. So-called gaps in the law develop as the law is
enforced. One of the rules of statutory construction used to fill in the gap
is the doctrine of necessary implication . . ., Every statute is understood,
by implication, to contain all such provisions as may be necessary to
effectuate its object and purpose, or to make effective rights, powers,
privileges or jurisdiction which it grants, including all such collateral and
subsidiary consequences as may be fairly and logically inferred from its
terms. Ex necessitate legis . . .
In applying the doctrine of necessary implication, we took into
consideration the rationale behind the disqualification of managerial employees
expressed in Bulletin Publishing Corporation v. Sanchez, thus " . . . 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." Stated differently, in the collective
bargaining process, managerial employees are supposed to be on the side of the
employer, to act as its representatives, and to see to it that its interest are well
protected. The employer is not assured of such protection if these employees
themselves are union members. Collective bargaining in such a situation can
become one-sided. It is the same reason that impelled this Court to consider the
position of confidential employees as included in the disqualification found in Art.
245 as if the disqualification of confidential employees were written in the
provision. If confidential employees could unionize in order to bargain for
advantages for themselves, then they could be governed by their own motives
rather than the interest of the employers. Moreover, unionization of confidential
employees for the purpose of collective bargaining would mean the extension of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 the law to persons or individuals who are supposed to act "in the interest of" the
employers. It is not farfetched that in the course of collective bargaining, they
might jeopardize that interest which they are duty bound to protect. Along the
same line of reasoning we held in Golden Farms, Inc. vs. Ferrer-Calleja
reiterated in Philips Industrial Development, Inc., NLRC, that "confidential
employees such as accounting personnel, radio and telegraph operators who,
having access to confidential information, may become the source of undue
advantage. Said employee(s) may act as spy or spies of either party to a
collective bargaining agreement." LibLex

The Court finds merit in the submission of the OSG that Route Managers, Chief
Checkers and Warehouse Operations Managers are supervisors while Credit &
Collection Managers and Accounting Managers are highly confidential employees.
Designation should be reconciled with the actual job description of subject employees.
A careful scrutiny of their job description indicates that they don't lay down company
policies. Theirs is not a final determination of the company policies since they have to
report to their respective superior. The mere fact that an employee is designated
manager does not necessarily make him one. Otherwise, there would be an absurd
situation where one can be given the title just to be deprived of the right to be a member
of a union. In the case of National Steel Corporation v. Laguesma , G.R. No. 103743,
January 29, 1996, it was stressed that:
"What is essential is the nature of the employee's function and not the
nomenclature or title given to the job which determines whether the employee
has rank and file or managerial status, or whether he is a supervisory employee."

WHEREFORE, the petitions under consideration are DISMISSED but subject

Decision, dated October 4, 1991, of the Secretary of Labor and Employment is
MODIFIED in that Credit and Collection Managers and Accounting Managers are highly
confidential employees not eligible for membership in a supervisors' union. No
pronouncement as to costs. cdll

SO ORDERED.
Melo, Vitug and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.
Panganiban, J., concurs in the result.

Footnotes

1. Pepsi-Cola Supervisory Employees Organization - UOEF, Comment, pp. 4-6,Rollo, pp. 71-
73.

2. Rollo, pp. 86-89, 92.

3. Rollo, p. 104.

4. Rollo, p. 110.

5. Rejoinder, pp. 2, 3, 10, 14; Rollo, pp. 125, 126, 133, 137.

6. OSG Comment, pp. 3-4, Rollo, pp. 145-146.

7. OSG Comment, p. 5, Rollo, p. 147.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 8. Petition, pp. 8, 13, 14; Rollo, pp. 9, 14, 15.

9. Annex I, Rollo, p. 213.

10. 230 SCRA 761, 770, citing Eastern Broadcasting Corporation (DYRE) vs. Dans, etc., et al.,
137 SCRA 628.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com