ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
February-1995 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 90628 February 1, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. JOSE A. RAYRAY

  • G.R. No. 97949 February 1, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ARMANDO P. GIRENG

  • G.R. No. 99375 February 1, 1995 : GLICERIO MANGOMA vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105776 February 1, 1995 : ROMEO G. JALOSJOS vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 105992 February 1, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ROLANDO CABRERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106161 February 1, 1995 : ILOCOS SUR ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110088 February 1, 1995 : MERLE A. ALONZO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110116 February 1, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. NICK A. NICOLAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111187 February 1, 1995 : R. TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1183 February 6, 1995 : CONCERNED CITIZENS vs. ARMIE E. ELMA

  • G.R. No. 97969 February 6, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. GUILLERMO PANGANIBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100133 February 6, 1995 : EDGARDO C. MORALES, ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104891 February 6, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. RONNIE MALLARI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113591 February 6, 1995 : AGUIDO LACSON, JR., ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114427 February 6, 1995 : ARMANDO GEAGONIA vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99346 February 7, 1995 : CASA FILIPINA REALTY CORPORATION vs. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109832 February 7, 1995 : FERNANDO FAROLAN vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116206 February 7, 1995 : JOSE M. BULAONG vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112573 February 9, 1995 : NORTHWEST ORIENT AIRLINES, INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113547 February 9, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ANITA L. BAUTISTA

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-92-6-251 : February 13, 1995 : EMERITO M. AGCAOILI vs. JOSE O. RAMOS

  • Adm. Matter No. 94-12-111-MeTC February 13, 1995 : AUDIT REPORTS OF ATTY. GENER C. ENDONA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-92-684 February 13, 1995 : OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. MAMINTING A. MALLI

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1068 February 13, 1995 : VICTOR ELIPE vs. HONESTO FABRE

  • G.R. No. 100635 February 13, 1995 : SPS. RAMON AND ERLINDA TARNATE vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100665 February 13, 1995 : ZANOTTE SHOES, ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104994 February 13, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. WILFREDO MORALES

  • G.R. No. 105834 February 13, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. JEAN B. BALINGAN

  • G.R. No. 110836 February 13, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. NICASIO V. CASIL

  • G.R. No. 110854 February 13, 1995 : PIER 8 ARRASTRE & STEVEDORING SERVICES, INC. vs. MA. NIEVES ROLDAN-CONFESOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112027 February 13, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. PABLO B. BALSACAO

  • G.R. No. L-112513 February 14, 1995 : EDGAR R. DEL CASTILLO vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-858 February 15, 1995

    OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. PEDRO ANTONIO

  • G.R. No. L-41968 February 15, 1995 : DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL. vs. DELIA P. MEDINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45835 February 15, 1995 : ALFREDO BITALAC vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 75257-58 February 15, 1995 : POTENCIANA CALAHAT, ET AL. vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98277 February 15, 1995 : COCOFED, ET AL. vs. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106783 February 15, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. MODESTO R. DE ROXAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110068 February 15, 1995 : PHILIPPINE DUPLICATORS, INC. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114145 February 15, 1995 : LEE ENG HONG, ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. 93-7-696-0 February 21, 1995

    IN RE JOAQUIN T. BORROMEO

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-741 February 21, 1995 : TEOTIMO GIL vs. EUFRONIO SON

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-985 February 21, 1995 : APOLINARIO MUÑEZ vs. CIRIACO ARIÑO

  • G.R. No. 94374 February 21, 1995 : PLDT COMPANY vs. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 107590 February 21, 1995 : PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG MAYNILA vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 109032 February 21, 1995 : DENNIS DEL ROSARIO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109662 February 21, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. RIZALDY GUAMOS

  • G.R. No. 112099 February 21, 1995 : ACHILLES C. BERCES, SR. vs. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 112285 February 21, 1995 : LOIDA ACAB, ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113890 February 22, 1995 : SPS. GIL AND ELMA DEL ROSARIO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114032 February 22, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. IGNACIO CAMAHALAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117078 February 22, 1995 : ALFREDO G. LAMEN, ET AL. vs. DIR., BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-922 February 23, 1995 : MIGUEL A. ARVISU vs. AUGUSTO O. SUMILANG

  • G.R. No. 82631 February 23, 1995 : SOUTHEAST ASIAN FISHERIES DEV'T. CENTER vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85667 February 23, 1995 : ILUMINADO ILUMIN vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92432 February 23, 1995 : ALDORA LARKINS vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94986 February 23, 1995 : HATIMA C. YASIN vs. SHARI'A DISTRICT COURT

  • G.R. No. 101683 February 23, 1995 : LBC AIR CARGO, INC., ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103975 February 23, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. RICHARD ZERVOULAKOS

  • G.R. No. 105710 February 23, 1995 : JAG & HAGGAR JEANS AND SPORTSWEAR CORP. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 106108 February 23, 1995 : CABALAN PASTULAN NEGRITO LABOR ASSO., ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107303 February 23, 1995 : EMMANUEL C. OÑATE, ET AL. vs. ZEUS C. ABROGAR

  • G.R. No. 108164 February 23, 1995 : FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST CO. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 109095-109107 February 23, 1995 : ELPEDIO LASCO, ET AL. vs. UNITED NATIONS REVOLVING FUND FOR NATURAL RESOURCES EXPLORATION

  • G.R. No. 112243 February 23, 1995 : SECRETARY OF HEALTH, ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 113779-80 February 23, 1995 : ALVIN TUASON vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101794 February 24, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ELISEO MORIN

  • G.R. Nos. 110991-92 February 24, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. MELCHOR DELA IGLESIA

  • G.R. No. 90628 February 1, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE A. RAYRAY

  • G.R. No. 97949 February 1, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO P. GIRENG

  • G.R. No. 99375 February 1, 1995 - GLICERIO MANGOMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105776 February 1, 1995 - ROMEO G. JALOSJOS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 105992 February 1, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO CABRERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106161 February 1, 1995 - ILOCOS SUR ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110088 February 1, 1995 - MERLE A. ALONZO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110116 February 1, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICK A. NICOLAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111187 February 1, 1995 - R. TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1183 February 6, 1995 - CONCERNED CITIZENS v. ARMIE E. ELMA

  • G.R. No. 97969 February 6, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO PANGANIBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100133 February 6, 1995 - EDGARDO C. MORALES, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104891 February 6, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONNIE MALLARI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113591 February 6, 1995 - AGUIDO LACSON, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114427 February 6, 1995 - ARMANDO GEAGONIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99346 February 7, 1995 - CASA FILIPINA REALTY CORPORATION v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109832 February 7, 1995 - FERNANDO FAROLAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116206 February 7, 1995 - JOSE M. BULAONG v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112573 February 9, 1995 - NORTHWEST ORIENT AIRLINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113547 February 9, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANITA L. BAUTISTA

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-92-6-251 February 13, 1995 - EMERITO M. AGCAOILI v. JOSE O. RAMOS

  • Adm. Matter No. 94-12-111-MeTC February 13, 1995 - AUDIT REPORTS OF ATTY. GENER C. ENDONA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-92-684 February 13, 1995 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. MAMINTING A. MALLI

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1068 February 13, 1995 - VICTOR ELIPE v. HONESTO FABRE

  • G.R. No. 100635 February 13, 1995 - SPS. RAMON AND ERLINDA TARNATE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100665 February 13, 1995 - ZANOTTE SHOES, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104994 February 13, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO MORALES

  • G.R. No. 105834 February 13, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JEAN B. BALINGAN

  • G.R. No. 110836 February 13, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICASIO V. CASIL

  • G.R. No. 110854 February 13, 1995 - PIER 8 ARRASTRE & STEVEDORING SERVICES, INC. v. MA. NIEVES ROLDAN-CONFESOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112027 February 13, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO B. BALSACAO

  • G.R. No. L-112513 February 14, 1995 - EDGAR R. DEL CASTILLO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-858 February 15, 1995 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. PEDRO ANTONIO

  • G.R. No. L-41968 February 15, 1995 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL. v. DELIA P. MEDINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45835 February 15, 1995 - ALFREDO BITALAC v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 75257-58 February 15, 1995 - POTENCIANA CALAHAT, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98277 February 15, 1995 - COCOFED, ET AL. v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106783 February 15, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MODESTO R. DE ROXAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110068 February 15, 1995 - PHILIPPINE DUPLICATORS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114145 February 15, 1995 - LEE ENG HONG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. 93-7-696-0 February 21, 1995 - IN RE JOAQUIN T. BORROMEO

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-741 February 21, 1995 - TEOTIMO GIL v. EUFRONIO SON

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-985 February 21, 1995 - APOLINARIO MUÑEZ v. CIRIACO ARIÑO

  • G.R. No. 94374 February 21, 1995 - PLDT COMPANY v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 107590 February 21, 1995 - PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG MAYNILA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 109032 February 21, 1995 - DENNIS DEL ROSARIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109662 February 21, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RIZALDY GUAMOS

  • G.R. No. 112099 February 21, 1995 - ACHILLES C. BERCES, SR. v. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 112285 February 21, 1995 - LOIDA ACAB, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113890 February 22, 1995 - SPS. GIL AND ELMA DEL ROSARIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114032 February 22, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO CAMAHALAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117078 February 22, 1995 - ALFREDO G. LAMEN, ET AL. v. DIR., BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-922 February 23, 1995 - MIGUEL A. ARVISU v. AUGUSTO O. SUMILANG

  • G.R. No. 82631 February 23, 1995 - SOUTHEAST ASIAN FISHERIES DEV’T. CENTER v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85667 February 23, 1995 - ILUMINADO ILUMIN v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92432 February 23, 1995 - ALDORA LARKINS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94986 February 23, 1995 - HATIMA C. YASIN v. SHARI’A DISTRICT COURT

  • G.R. No. 101683 February 23, 1995 - LBC AIR CARGO, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103975 February 23, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICHARD ZERVOULAKOS

  • G.R. No. 105710 February 23, 1995 - JAG & HAGGAR JEANS AND SPORTSWEAR CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 106108 February 23, 1995 - CABALAN PASTULAN NEGRITO LABOR ASSO., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107303 February 23, 1995 - EMMANUEL C. OÑATE, ET AL. v. ZEUS C. ABROGAR

  • G.R. No. 108164 February 23, 1995 - FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 109095-109107 February 23, 1995 - ELPEDIO LASCO, ET AL. v. UNITED NATIONS REVOLVING FUND FOR NATURAL RESOURCES EXPLORATION

  • G.R. No. 112243 February 23, 1995 - SECRETARY OF HEALTH, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 113779-80 February 23, 1995 - ALVIN TUASON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101794 February 24, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELISEO MORIN

  • G.R. Nos. 110991-92 February 24, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR DELA IGLESIA

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 110854   February 13, 1995 - PIER 8 ARRASTRE & STEVEDORING SERVICES, INC. v. MA. NIEVES ROLDAN-CONFESOR, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 110854. February 13, 1995.]

    PIER 8 ARRASTRE & STEVEDORING SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, v. HON. MA. NIEVES ROLDAN-CONFESOR, in her capacity as Secretary of Labor and Employment, and GENERAL MARITIME & STEVEDORES UNION (GMSU), Respondents.


    SYLLABUS


    1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEES; DISTINGUISHED FROM SUPERVISORY AND RANK AND FILE EMPLOYEES. — The applicable law governing the proper composition of a bargaining unit is Article 245 of the Labor Code, as amended. Article 212(m) of the same Code, as well as Book V, Rule 1, Section 1(o) of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, as amended by the Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. 6715, differentiate managerial, supervisory, and rank-and-file employees, thus:" ‘Managerial Employee’ is one who is vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, layoff, 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 the Book."cralaw virtua1aw library

    2. ID.; ID.; TEST FOR DETERMINING THEREOF. — This Court has ruled on numerous occasions that the test of supervisory or managerial status is whether an employee possesses authority to act in the interest of his employer, which authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires use of independent judgment. What governs the determination of the nature of employment is not the employee’s title, but his job description. If the nature of the employee’s job does not fall under the definition of "managerial" or "supervisory" in the Labor Code, he is eligible to be a member of the rank-and-file bargaining unit.

    3. ID.; ID.; ID.; APPLICATION IN CASE OF FOREMEN. — Foremen are chief and often especially-trained workmen who work with and commonly are in charge of a group of employees in an industrial plant or in construction work. They are the persons designated by the employer-management to direct the work of employees, and to superintend and oversee them. They are representatives of the employer-management with authority over particular groups of workers, processes, operations, or sections of a plant or an entire organization. In the modern industrial plant, they are at once a link in the chain of command and the bridge between management and labor. In the performance of their work, foremen definitely use their independent judgment and are empowered to make recommendations for managerial action with respect to those employees under their control. Foremen fall squarely under the category of supervisory employees, and cannot be part of rank-and file unions.

    4. ID.; ID.; ID.; LEGAL SECRETARIES, CONSIDERED CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES. — Upon the other hand, legal secretaries are neither managers nor supervisors. Their work is basically routinary and clerical. However, they should be differentiated from rank-and-file employees because they are tasked with, among others, the typing of legal documents, memoranda and correspondence, the keeping of records and files, the giving of an receiving notices, and such other duties as required by the legal personnel of the corporation. Legal secretaries therefore fall under the category of confidential employees. Thus, to them applies our holding in the case of Philips Industrial Development, Inc. v. NLRC, 210 SCRA 339 (1992), that: ". . . By the very nature of their functions, they assist and act in a confidential capacity to, or have access to confidential matters of, persons who exercise managerial functions in the field of labor relations. As such, the rationale behind the ineligibility of managerial employees to form, assist or join a labor union equally applies to them. "In Bulletin Publishing Co., Inc. v. Hon. Augusto Sanchez, this Court 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.’ "In Golden Farms, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja, (210 SCRA 471 [1989]), this Court explicitly made this rationale applicable to confidential employees: `This rationale holds true also for confidential employees . . ., who having access to confidential information, may become the source of undue advantage. Said employee(s) may act as a spy or spies of either party to a collective bargaining agreement. . . .’"

    5. ID.; ID.; ID.; TIMEKEEPER AND ASSISTANT TIMEKEEPER, NOT INCLUDED. — As for the timekeeper and assistant timekeeper, it is clear from petitioner’s own pleadings that they are neither managerial nor supervisory employees. They are merely tasked to report those who commit infractions against company rules and regulations. This reportorial function is routinary and clerical. They do not determine the fate of those who violate company policy rules and regulations. It follows that they cannot be excluded from the subject bargaining unit.

    6. ID.; LABOR RELATIONS; COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT; EFFECTIVITY THEREOF; RULE. — In the case of Lopez Sugar Corporations v. Federation of Free Workers, 189 SCRA 179 [1991]), this Court reiterated the rule that although a CBA has expired, it continues to have legal effects as between the parties until a new CBA has been entered into. It is the duty of both parties to the CBA to keep the status quo, and to continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-day freedom period and/or until a new agreement is reached by the parties. Applied to the case at bench, the legal effects of the immediate past CBA between petitioner and private respondent terminated, and the effectivity of the new CBA began, only on March 4, 1993, when public respondent resolved their dispute.

    7. ID.; ARBITRATORS; CONCLUSION THEREOF, RESPECTED BY COURT. — Order is based on well-studied evidence. The conclusions reached by public respondent in the discharge of her statutory duty as compulsory arbitrator, demand the high respect of this Court. The study and settlement of these disputes fall within public respondent’s distinct administrative expertise. She is especially trained for this delicate task, and she has within her cognizance such data and information as will assist her in striking the equitable balance between the needs of management, labor, and the public. Unless there is clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, this Court cannot and will not interfere with the labor expertise of public respondent Secretary of Labor.


    D E C I S I O N


    PUNO, J.:


    Petitioner corporation and private respondent labor union entered into a three-year Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with expiry date on November 27, 1991. During the freedom period, the National Federation of Labor Unions (NAFLU) questioned the majority status of pricate respondent through a petition for certification election. The election conducted on February 27, 1992 was won by private Respondent. On March 19, 1992, private respondent was certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of petitioner’s rank-and-file employees.chanrobles law library

    On June 22, 1992, private respondent’s CBA proposals were received by petitioner. Counter-proposals were made by petitioner. Negotiations collapsed, and on August 24, 1992, private respondent filed a Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB). The NCMB tried but failed to settle the parties’ controversy.

    On September 30, 1992, public respondent Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the dispute. She resolved the bargaining deadlock between the parties through an Order, dated March 4, 1993, which reads, in part:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "x       x       x

    "A. The non-economic issues

    "1. Scope/coverage of the CBA. Article I of the 1988 CBA provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    ‘The Company recognizes the Union as the sole and exclusive collective bargaining representative of the all the stevedores, dockworkers,, gang bosses, foremen, rank and file employees working at Pier 8, North Harbor’ and its offices and said positions are [sic] listed in ANNEX ‘A’ hereof.

    ‘As such representative the UNION is designated as the collective bargaining agent with respect to and concerning the terms and conditions of employment and the interpretations and implementation of the provisions and conditions of this Agreement.’

    "Annex ‘A’ of the CBA is the listing of positions covered thereby. These are:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. Foremen;

    2. Gang bosses;

    3. Winchmen;

    4. Signalmen;

    5. Stevedores;

    6. Dockworkers;

    7. Tallymen;

    8. Checkers;

    9. Forklift and crane operators;

    10. Sweepers;

    11. Mechanics;

    12. Utilitymen;

    13. Carpenters; and

    14. Other rank and file employees.

    "The company argues in the first instance that under Article 212(m) in relation to Article 245 of the Labor Code, supervisors are ineligible for membership in a labor organization of rank and file employees. Being supervisors, foremen should be excluded from the bargaining unit.

    "The Company likewise seeks the exclusion on the ground of lack of community of interest and divergence in functions, mode of compensation and working conditions of the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. Accounting clerk;

    2. Audit clerk;

    3. Collector;

    4. Payroll clerk;

    5. Nurse;

    6. Chief biller;

    7. Biller;

    8. Teller/biller;

    9. Personnel clerk;

    10. Timekeeper;

    11. Asst. timekeeper;

    12. Legal secretary;

    13. Telephone operator;

    14. Janitor/Utility; and

    15. Clerk

    "These positions, the Company argues, cannot be lumped together with the stevedores or dockworkers who mostly comprise the bargaining unit. Further, notwithstanding the check-off provisions of the CBA, the incumbents in these positions have never paid union dues. Finally, some of them occupy confidential positions and therefore ought to be excluded from the bargaining unit.

    The Union generally argues that the Company’s proposed exclusions are retrogressive. . . .

    "We see no compelling justification to order the modification of Article I of the 1988 CBA as worded. For by lumping together stevedores and other rank and file employees, the obvious intent of the parties was to treat all employees not disqualified from union membership as members of one bargaining unit. This is regardless of working conditions, mode of compensation, place of work, or other considerations. In the absence of mutual agreement of the parties or evidence that the present composition of the bargaining unit is detrimental to the individual and organizational rights either of the employees or of the Company, this expressed intent cannot be set aside.

    It may well be that as a consequence of Republic Act No. 6715, foremen are ineligible to join the union of the rank and file. But this provision can be invoked only upon proof that the foremen sought to be excluded from the bargaining unit are cloaked with effective recommendatory powers such as to qualify them under the legal definition of supervisors.

    "x       x       x

    "7. Effectivity of the CBA. The Union demands that the CBA should be fully retroactive to 28 November 1991. The Company is opposed on the ground that under Article 253-A of the Labor Code, the six-month period within which the parties must come to an agreement so that the same will be automatically retroactive is long past.

    "The Union’s demand for full retroactivity, we note, will result in undue financial burden to the Company. On the other hand, the Company’s reliance on Article 253-A is misplaced as this applies only to the renegotiated terms of an existing CBA. Here, the deadlock arose from negotiations for a new CBA.

    "These considered, the CBA shall be effective from the time we assumed jurisdiction over the dispute, that is, on 22 September 1992, and shall remain effective for five (5) years thereafter. It shall be understood that except for the representation aspect, all other provisions thereof shall be renegotiated not latere than three (3) years after its effectivity, consistently with Article 253-A of the Labor Code.

    "B. The economic issues

    "The comparative positions of the parties are:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    COMPANY UNION

    "x       x       x

    "5. Vacation 17 days vacation and i) For all cocovered

    and sick leave 17 days sick leave employees other than

    per year for employees gang boses:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    with at least five years

    of service

    15 working days vacation

    and 15 working days

    sick leave for those with

    at least 1 year of service

    20 working days vacation

    and 20 working days sick

    leave for those with more

    than one year of service

    up to 5 years of service

    25 working days vacation

    and 25 working days sick

    leave for those with more

    than 5 years of service up

    to 10 years of service

    30 working days vacation

    and 30 working days sick

    leave for those with more

    than 10 years of service

    Provided that in Provided that in the case

    the case of a rotation of a rotation worker, he

    tion worker he must must have worked for

    have worked for at 140 days in a calendar

    least 160 days in a year year as a condition for

    for availment availment.

    Provided, further that in

    - the event a rotation

    worker fails to complete

    140 days work in a

    calendar year, he shall

    still be entitled to vacation

    and sick leave with pay,

    as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    139 — 120 days worked:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    90%

    119 — 110 days worked:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    50%

    ii) For Gang bosses:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Same as the above

    schedule except that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1) the condition that a

    gang boss must have

    worked for at least 120

    days in a calendar year

    shall be reduced to 110

    days; and

    2) where the above

    number of days worked is

    not met, the gang boss

    shall still be entitled to

    vacation and sick leave

    with pay, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    109 — 90 days worked:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    90%

    89 — 75 days worked:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    50%

    "x       x       x

    "7. Death aid P1,500.00 to heirs P10,000.00 to heirs of

    of covered employees covered employees

    P5,000.00 assistance for

    death of immediate

    member of covered

    employee’s family

    "x       x       x

    "12. Emergency loan

    a) amount of P700.00 but damage to 30 days salary payable

    entitlement dwelling by fire shall be through payroll deduction

    included in twelve monthly

    installments

    b) cash bond None The company shall put up

    for loss, a cash bond of not less

    damage or than P40,000.00 for accident winchmen, crane and

    fork-lift operators.

    "x       x       x

    "Balancing the right of the Company to remain viable and to just returns to its investments with right of the Union members to just rewards for their labors, we find the following award to be fair and responsible:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "x       x       x

    "6. Vacation and Sick Leave

    a) Non-rotation workers 17 days vacation/17 days sick

    leave for those with at least

    1 year of service

    b) Rotation workers 17 days vacation/17 days sick

    other than gang boss leave, provided that the covered

    worker must have worked for at

    least 155 days in a calendar

    year

    c) Gang bosses 17 days vacation/17 days sick

    leave, provided that the gang

    boss must have worked for at

    least 115 days in a calendar year

    "x       x       x

    "8. Death aid P3,000.00 to the heirs of each

    covered employee

    "x       x       x

    "12. Emergency loan 30 days pay, payable through

    payroll deductions of 1/12 of

    monthly salary

    "WHEREFORE, the Pier 8 Arrastre and Stevedoring Services and the General Maritime Services Union are hereby ordered to execute a new collective bargaining agreement incorporating the dispositions herein contained. These shall be in addition to all other existing terms, conditions and benefits of employment, except those specifically deleted herein, which have previously governed the relations of the parties. All other disputed items not specifically touched upon herein are deemed denied, without prejudice to such other agreements as the parties may have reached in the meantime. The collective bargaining agreement so executed shall be effective from 22 September 1992 and up to five years thereafter, subject to renegotiation on the third year of its effectivity pursuant to Article 253-A of the Labor Code." 1

    Petitioner sought partial reconsideration of the Order. On June 8, 1993, public respondent affirmed her findings, except for the date of effectivity of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which was changed to September 30, 1992. This is the date when she assumed jurisdiction over the deadlock.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

    Petitioner now assails the Order as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    "I


    THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF LABOR COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN NOT EXCLUDING CERTAIN POSITIONS FROM THE BARGAINING UNIT.

    "II


    THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF LABOR COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN MAKING THE CBA EFFECTIVE ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992 WHEN SHE ASSUMED JURISDICTION OVER THE LABOR DISPUTE AND NOT MARCH 4, 1993 WHEN SHE RENDERED JUDGMENT OVER THE DISPUTE

    "III


    THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF LABOR COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN REDUCING THE NUMBER OF DAYS AN EMPLOYEE SHOULD ACTUALLY WORK TO BE ENTITLED TO VACATION AND SICK LEAVE BENEFITS

    "IV


    THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF LABOR COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN INCREASING WITHOUT FACTUAL BASIS THE DEATH AID AND EMERGENCY LOAN" 2

    The petition is partially meritorious.

    Firstly, petitioner questions public respondent for not excluding four (4) foremen, a legal secretary, a timekeeper and an assistant timekeeper from the bargaining unit composed of rank-and-file employees represented by private Respondent. Petitioner argues that: (1) the failure of private respondent to object when the foremen and legal secretary were prohibited from voting in the certification election constitutes an admission that such employees hold supervisory/confidential positions; and (2) the primary duty and responsibility of the timekeeper and assistant timekeeper is "to enforce company rules and regulations by reporting to petitioner . . . those workers who committed infractions, such as those caught abandoning their posts and sleeping on post, "and hence, they should not be considered as rank-and-file employees.

    The applicable law governing the proper composition of a bargaining unit is Article 245 of the Labor Code, as amended, which provides as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Art. 245. Ineligibility of managerial employees to join any labor organization; right of supervisory employees. — Managerial employees are not eligible to join, assist or form any labor organization. Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form separate labor organizations of their own.

    Article 212(m) of the same Code, as well as Book V, Rule 1, Section 1(o) of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, as amended by the Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. 6715, differentiate managerial supervisory, and rank-and-file employees, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "‘Managerial Employee’ is one who is vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and ‘execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, layoff, 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 the Book."cralaw virtua1aw library

    This Court has ruled on numerous occasions that the test of supervisory or managerial status is whether an employee possesses authority to act in the interest of his employer, which authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires use of independent judgment. 3 What governs the determination of the nature of employment is not the employee’s title, but his job description. If the nature of the employees’s job does not fall under the definition of "managerial" or "supervisory" in the Labor Code, he is eligible to be a member of the rank-and-file bargaining unit. 4

    Foremen are chief and often especially-trained workmen who work with and commonly are in charge of a group of employees in an industrial plant or in construction work. 5 They are the persons designated by the employer-management to direct the work of employees, and to superintend and oversee them. 6 They are representatives of the employer-management with authority over particular groups of workers, processes, operations, or sections of a plant or an entire organization. In the modern industrial plant, they are at once a link in the chain of command and the bridge between management and labor. 7 In the performance of their work, foremen definitely use their independent judgment and are empowered to make recommendations for managerial action with respect to those employees under their control. Foremen fall squarely under the category of supervisory employees, and cannot be part of rank and file unions.

    Upon the other hand, legal secretaries are neither managers nor supervisors. Their work is basically routinary and clerical. However, they should be differentiated from rank-and-file employees because they are tasked with, among others, the typing of legal documents, memoranda and correspondence, the keeping of records and files, the giving of and receiving notices, and such other duties as required by the legal personnel of the corporation. 8 Legal secretaries therefore fall under the category of confidential employees. Thus, to them applies our holding in the case of Philips Industrial Development, Inc. v. NLRC, 210 SCRA 339 (1992), that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    ". . . By the very nature of their functions, they assist and act in a confidential capacity to, or have access to confidential matters of, persons who exercise managerial functions in the field of labor relations. As such, the rationale behind the ineligibility of managerial employees to form, assist or join a labor union equally applies to them.

    "In Bulletin Publishing Co., Inc. v. Hon. Augusto Sanchez, this Court elaborated on this rationale, thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    . . . 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.’

    "In Golden Farms, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja, 9 this Court explicitly made this rationale applicable to confidential employees:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    ‘This rationale holds true also for confidential employees . . ., who having access to confidential information, may become the source of undue advantage. Said employee(s) may act as a spy or spies of either party to a collective bargaining agreement. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

    We thus hold that public respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion in not excluding the four foremen and legal secretary from the bargaining unit composed of rank-and-file employees.

    As for the timekeeper and assistant timekeeper, it is clear from petitioner’s own pleadings that they are neither managerial nor supervisory employees. They are merely tasked to report those who commit infractions against company rules and regulations. This reportorial function is routinary and clerical. They do not determine the fate of those who violate company policy rules and regulations. It follows that they cannot be excluded from the subject bargaining unit.

    The next issue is the date when the new CBA of the parties should be given effect. Public respondent fixed the effectivity date on September 30, 1992, when she assumed jurisdiction over the dispute. Petitioner maintains it should be March 4, 1993, when public respondent rendered judgment over the dispute.

    The applicable laws are Articles 253 and 253-A of the Labor Code, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Art. 253. Duty to bargain collectively when there exists a collective bargaining agreement. — When there is a collective bargaining agreement, the duty to bargain collectively shall also mean that neither party shall terminate nor modify such agreement during its lifetime. However, either party can serve a written notice to terminate or modify the agreement at least sixty (60) days prior to its expiration date. It shall be the duty of both parties to keep the status quo and to continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-day period and/or until a new agreement is reached by the parties."cralaw virtua1aw library

    and;

    "Art. 253-A. Terms of a collective bargaining agreement. — Any Collective Bargaining Agreement that the parties may enter into shall, insofar as the representation aspect is concerned, be for a term of five (5) years. No petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent shall be entertained and no certification election shall be conducted by the Department of Labor and Employment outside the sixty-day period immediately before the date of expiry of such five year term of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. All other provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement shall be renegotiated not later than three (3) years after its execution. Any agreement on such other provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into within six (6) months from the date of expiry of the term of such other provisions as fixed in such Collective Bargaining Agreement, shall retroact to the day immediately following such date. If any such agreement is entered into beyond six months, the parties shall agree on the duration of retroactivity thereof. In case of a deadlock in the renegotiation of the collective bargaining agreement, the parties may exercise their rights under this Code."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In Union of Filipino’ Employees v. NLRC, 192 SCRA 414 (1990), this Court interpreted the above law as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "In light of the foregoing, this Court upholds the pronouncement of the NLRC holding the CBA to be signed by the parties effective upon the promulgation of the assailed resolution. It is clear and explicit from Article 253-A that any agreement on such other provisions of the CBA shall be given retroactive effect only when it is entered into within six (6) months from its expiry date. If the agreement was entered into outside the six (6) month period, then the parties shall agree on the duration of the retroactivity thereof.

    "The assailed resolution which incorporated the CBA to be signed by the parties was promulgated June 5, 1989, the expiry date of the past CBA. Based on the provision of Section 253-A, its retroactivity should be agreed upon by the parties. But since no agreement to that effect was made, public respondent did not abuse its discretion in giving the said CBA a prospective effect. The action of the public respondent is within the ambit of its authority vested by existing law."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In the case of Lopez Sugar Corporation v. Federation of Free Workers, 189 SCRA 179 (1991), this Court reiterated the rule that although a CBA has expired, it continues to have legal effects as between the parties until a new CBA has been entered into. It is the duty of both parties to the CBA to keep the status quo, and to continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-day freedom period and/or until a new agreement is reached by the parties. 10 Applied to the case at bench, the legal effects of the immediate past CBA between petitioner and private respondent terminated, and the effectivity of the new CBA began, only on March 4, 1993, when public respondent resolved their dispute.

    Finally, we find no need to discuss at length the merits of the third and fourth assignments of error. The questioned Order relevantly states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "In the resolution of the economic issues, the Company urges us to consider, among others, present costs of living, its financial capacity, the present wages being paid by the other cargo handlers at the North Harbor, and the fact that the present average wage of its workers is P127.75 a day, which is higher than the statutory minimum wage of P118.00 a day. The Company’s evidence, consisting of its financial statements for the past three years, shows that its net income was P743, 423.45 for 1989, P2,108,569.03 for 1990, and P1,479,671.84 for 1991, or an average of P1,443,885.10 over the three-year period. It argues that for just the first year of effectivity of the CBA, the Company’s proposals on wages, effect thereof on overtime, 13th month pay, and vacation and sick leave commutation, will cost about P520, 723.44, or 35.19% of its net income for 1991. The Company likewise urges us to consider the multiplier effect of its proposals on the second and third years of the CBA. As additional argument, the Company manifests that a portion of its pier will undergo a six-month to one-year renovation starting January 1993.

    "On the other hand, the Union’s main line of argument — that is, aside from being within the financial capacity of the Company to grant, it’s demands are fair and reasonable — is not supported by evidence controverting the Company’s own presentation of its financial capacity. The Union in fact uses statements of the Company for 1989-1991, although it interprets these data as sufficient justification for its own proposals. It also draws our attention to the bargaining history of the parties, particularly the 1988 negotiations during which the company was able to grant wage increases despite operational losses.

    "Balancing the right of the Company to remain viable and to just returns to its investments with right of the Union members to just rewards for their labors, we find the following award to be fair and reasonable . . . 11

    It is evident that the above portion of the impugned Order is based on well-studied evidence. The conclusions reached by public respondent in the discharge of her statutory, duty as compulsory arbitrator, demand the high respect of this Court. The study and settlement of these disputes fall within public respondent’s distinct administrative expertise. She is especially trained for this delicate task, and she has within her cognizance such data and information as will assist her in striking the equitable balance between the needs of management, labor, and the public. Unless there is clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, this Court cannot and will not interfere with the labor expertise of public respondent Secretary of Labor.

    IN VIEW WHEREOF, public respondent’s Order, dated March 4, 1993, and Resolution, dated June 8, 1993, are hereby MODIFIED to exclude foremen and legal secretaries from the rank-and-file bargaining unit represented by private respondent union, and to fix the date of effectivity of the five-year collective bargaining agreement between petitioner corporation and private respondent union on March 4, 1993. No costs.

    SO ORDERED.

    Narvasa, Bidin, Regalado and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Order of the Secretary of Labor and Employment dated March 4, 1993. See Annex "A" to Petition, pp. 27-47 of Rollo.

    2. Rollo, pp. 6-7.

    3. See Philippine Appliance Corporation v. Laguesma, 226 SCRA 730 (1993); Villuga v. NLRC, 225 SCRA 537 (1993); Pagkakaisa ng mga Manggagawa sa Triumph International-United Lumber and General Workers of the Philippines v. Ferrer-Calleja, 181 SCRA 119 (1990). See also Atlas Lithographic Services, Inc. v. Laguesma, 205 SCRA 12 (1992); Philtranco Service Enterprises v. Bureau of Labor Relations, 174 SCRA 338 (1989).

    4. See Southern Philippines Federation of Labor (SPFL) v. Calleja, 172 SCRA 676 (1989).

    5. See Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition (1969); Webter’s Third New International Dictionary (1971).

    6. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition (1990).

    7. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1971).

    8. See Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition (1990).

    9. 210 SCRA 471 (1989).

    10. National Congress of Unions in the Sugar Industry of the Philippines v. Ferrer-Calleja, 205 SCRA 478 (1992).

    11. Rollo, p. 44-45.

    G.R. No. 110854   February 13, 1995 - PIER 8 ARRASTRE & STEVEDORING SERVICES, INC. v. MA. NIEVES ROLDAN-CONFESOR, ET AL.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED