Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1965 > May 1965 Decisions > G.R. No. L-20448 May 25, 1965 - NAPOLEON MAGALIT, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-20448. May 25, 1965.]

NAPOLEON MAGALIT, ET AL., Petitioner, v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL., Respondents.

Alberto P. Ismael, for Petitioners.

Jose C. Espinas & Associates for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR RELATIONS; UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE; SUPERVISORS JOINING LABOR UNION OF EMPLOYEES. — A chief legal officer of a government corporation is a supervisor and his assignment as liaison officer with other offices does not strip him of such regular function. Being a supervisor, it is unfair labor practice for him to join a rank and file of employees’ union.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; WAPCO POSITION DESCRIPTION FORMS USED TO DETERMINE FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF EMPLOYEES. — Although the statements contained in WAPCO Position Description Forms of government corporations are made by the personnel concerned, yet having been approved by their Department Heads and confirmed by the General Manager of the Office and submitted to the WAPCO, these statements partake of an official character and as such can be considered as the true index of the functions and duties of the employees concerned.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; EMPLOYEES EXERCISING GENERAL SUPERVISION OVER A GROUP OF ASSISTANTS ARE CONSIDERED SUPERVISORS. — Where an examination of the statement of Duties of the WAPCO Position and Description Forms of certain employees reveal that each and everyone exercises general supervision over a group of executive assistants in performing a variety of research, administrative and technical duties, or is given the power to recommend action on a variety of matters pertaining to the operation of the business of the office and, in general, each performs such other duties as may be assigned to them by the general manager, it is held that said employees come within the category of supervisors within the meaning of Section 2 (k) of Republic Act 875.


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


Napoleon Magalit, Et Al., all employees of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office, filed a complaint for unfair labor practice with the Court of Industrial Relations against Geronimo Quadra, Et Al., charging them with a violation of the Magna Carta of Labor in that being supervisors they joined a union formed exclusively of rank and file employees of said office. Having found merit in the charge, a prosecutor of the court filed a formal complaint averring therein the requisite acts constituting the unfair labor practice complained of.

Notified of the charge, respondents answered denying the commission of the act imputed to them and alleging that the charge is but an election gimmick to discredit respondents in connection with the election of officers of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Employees Association for the year 1962 in order to bolster the chances of complainants who themselves were aspirants for the same or similar positions. Incidentally, respondents prayed that they be awarded damages in the amount of P10,000.00.

Honorable Jose S. Bautista, presiding judge, heard the case, and, thereafter, rendered decision dismissing the complaint. He found that under the charter creating the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office, 1 the general powers of the office are lodged in a board of directors, composed of five members, being its policy-determining body, and the general manager created therein is given the direction and control of the office in all matters not specifically reserved to the board. In addition, he is given the power to appoint the personnel of the office except the auditor and the personnel assigned to him, and in implementing the policies of the board, the general manager acts thru the department managers whose recommendations are merely routinary since the policies are already defined and fixed by the board. In short, he is of the opinion that the general manager is the only official in that office who may be considered as supervisor within the meaning of the Magna Carta.

This decision was affirmed by the court en banc, with the dissent of Judge Amando C. Bugayong. The case is now before us on a petition for review.

The issue now to be resolved is: Is there any factual basis for the conclusion that respondents are not supervisors within the meaning of the Magna Carta of Labor?

Under the law, supervisor means "any person having authority . . . to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign, recommend, or discipline other employees . . . or effectively to recommend such acts if, in connection with the foregoing, the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routinary or clerical nature but requires the use of independent judgment" (Section 2 (k) Republic Act No. 875). This means that a person holds a supervisory position if, among others, he can recommend acts that are not merely routinary or clerical but require the use of independent judgment. Do the positions occupied by respondents include the performance of acts other than routinary, or which require the use of discretion? Do they have the power in connection with the duties of their office to recommend the performance of acts which requires the use of independent judgment? To answer these questions it is necessary that we go to the nature of their positions and the functions and duties incident thereto.

In this connection, it is important that we take note of the statements the respondents have submitted to the Wage and Position Classification Office, WAPCO for short, denominated Position Description Forms wherein they made a detailed relation of their functions and duties. While the entries contained therein were personally made by the personnel concerned, they were all approved by their Department Heads and confirmed by the General Manager of the office. They were submitted to the WAPCO in order that this office may classify the positions then existing and may give them their proper classification and salary range. These statements are, therefore, official in character and as such, can be considered as the true index of the functions and duties of the employees concerned, since the law creating the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office does not mention any position other than that of the general manager. It merely empowers him to appoint the subordinate personnel that may be necessary. Hence, it can readily be seen that position cannot be regarded as the only supervisor in legal contemplation for he alone cannot discharge and carry out the work envisioned by the law-makers `in creating the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office.

Now, what do these Position Description Forms contain relative to the functions and duties of respondents. To this effect it is enough that we take a look at what it is related under the title "Statement of Duties" appearing in each and everyone of them and this much we will find: that each and everyone exercise general supervision over a group of executive assistants in performing a variety of research, administrative and technical duties, or is given the power to recommend action on a variety of matters pertaining to the operation of the business of the office and, in general, each performs such other duties as may be assigned to them by the general manager. These duties are given them in addition to other functions that are peculiar to the positions they hold. And judging from their nature there is no doubt that these officials come within the category of supervisors within the meaning of Section 2 (k) of Republic Act 875.

It is true that respondent Geronimo Quadra, besides his duties as chief legal officer, likewise acts as liaison officer between the Sweepstakes Office and those of Congress, the Civil Service Commission and the Office of the President, but this assignment does not strip him of his regular function as supervisor. In other words, notwithstanding this assignment, his supervisory power over the personnel working in his office is retained. His character as supervisor is not nullified.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is reversed. It is hereby ordered that respondents cease to be members of respondent union, and as such should resign from the offices to which they had been elected. No costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J. P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.

Barrera, J., took no part.

Endnotes:



1. Republic Act No. 1169, as amended by Republic Act No. 1622.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






May-1965 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-16784 May 19, 1965 - IN RE: LIANE C. GOMEZ v. AUGUSTO G. SYJUCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19997 May 19, 1965 - VISAYAN BICYCLE MANUFACTURING CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20139 May 19, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEGUNDO MARQUEZ Y CASTRO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20282 May 19, 1965 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. EUSEBIO DAPLAS

  • G.R. No. L-20791 May 19, 1965 - MANUEL F. AQUINO, ET AL v. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20815 May 19, 1965 - SANTIAGO MANZANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19537 May 20, 1965 - LINO GUTIERREZ, ET AL v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-18766 May 20, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON LOPEZ

  • G.R. No. L-19537 May 20, 1965 - LINO GUTIERREZ, ET AL. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-19727 May 20, 1965 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PHOENIX ASSURANCE CO., LTD.

  • G.R. No. L-20430 May 20, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUVIGES SAN ANTONIO

  • A.C. No. 611 May 25, 1965 - BONIFACIO GARCIA, ET AL v. ATTY. ABELARDO MILLA

  • G.R. No. L-20448 May 25, 1965 - NAPOLEON MAGALIT, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20618 May 25, 1965 - HERMENEGILDO R. ROSALES v. FLAVIANO YENKO

  • G.R. No. L-14532 & L-14533 May 26, 1965 - JOSE LEON GONZALES v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13469 May 27, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO EGUAL, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-15706 May 27, 1965 - ILDEFONSO D. YAP, ET AL v. MANUEL L. CARREON

  • G.R. No. L-18804 May 27, 1965 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. WESTERN PACIFIC CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-19450 May 27, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIMPLICIO VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. L-21997 May 27, 1965 - JOSE C. ZULUETA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. L-13816 May 31, 1965 - SEVERO ROMERO, ET AL. v. ISABELO DE LOS REYES, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-17132 May 31, 1965 - JUAN BENEMERITO, ET AL v. PETRONILA COSTANILLA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17320 May 31, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO PAZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17712 May 31, 1965 - BASILIO UNSAY, ET AL v. CECILIA MUÑOZ PALMA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18038 May 31, 1965 - ROSA GUSTILO v. AUGUSTO GUSTILO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18348 May 31, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAMILO CALACALA

  • G.R. No. L-18443 May 31, 1965 - ENRIQUE SISON, ET AL v. JUAN PAJO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18452 May 31, 1965 - AUGUSTO COSIO, ET AL v. CHERIE PALILEO

  • G.R. No. L-18497 May 31, 1965 - DAGUPAN TRADING COMPANY v. RUSTICO MACAM

  • G.R. No. L-19346 May 31, 1965 - SOLEDAD L. LACSON, ET AL. v. ABELARDO G. DIAZ

  • G.R. No. L-19587 May 31, 1965 - RAFAEL JALOTJOT v. MARINDUQUE IRON MINES AGENTS, INC., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19646 May 31, 1965 - IN RE: ESPIRITU NG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19659 May 31, 1965 - DR. POLICARPIO C. ALISOSO v. TARCELA LASTIMOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19967 May 31, 1965 - ARSENIO REYES v. SINAI C. HAMADA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20202 May 31, 1965 - CIRIACO HERNANDEZ v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20227 May 31, 1965 - IN RE: GO KEM LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20275-79 May 31, 1965 - VIRGINIA B. UICHANCO, ET AL v. FIDEL GUTIERREZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20394 May 31, 1965 - STEPHEN W. MARTIN v. CELESTINO GOMEZ

  • G.R. No. L-20472 May 31, 1965 - MARIO F. OUANO, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20577 May 31, 1965 - VISAYAN PACKING CORP. v. REPARATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-20617 May 31, 1965 - BRUNO GARCIA v. DALMACIO ANAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20737 May 31, 1965 - ROQUE ESCAÑO v. RODRIGO C. LIM

  • G.R. No. L-20792 May 31, 1965 - ELIZALDE & CO., INC. v. ALLIED WORKERS ASSO. OF THE PHIL., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20950 May 31, 1965 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. AYALA Y CIA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-21235 May 31, 1965 - RODOLFO TIRONA v. M. CUDIAMAT

  • G.R. No. L-21653 May 31, 1965 - VICENTE DE LARA, JR., ET AL v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-21764 May 31, 1965 - VICENTE CABILING, ET AL. v. EUSEBIO PABULAAN, ET AL.