Sie sind auf Seite 1von 11

G.R.No.98050.March17,1994.

*
PHILIPPINE PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER CORPORATION,
petitioner, vs. HON.RUBEND.TORRES,SecretaryofLabor
andEmployment,HON.RODOLFOS.MILADO,Department
of Labor and Employment MediatorArbiter for Region VIII,
Tacloban City, and PHILPHOS MOVEMENT FOR
PROGRESS,INC.(PMPI),respondents.
LaborLaw;DueProcess;Theessenceofdueprocessissimplyan
opportunitytobeheard,orasappliedtoadministrativeproceedings,an
opportunity to explain ones side or an opportunity to seek a
reconsiderationoftheactionorrulingcomplainedof.Wedonotseeit
thewayPHILPHOSdoeshere.Theessenceofdueprocessissimplyan
opportunitytobeheard or,as appliedtoadministrativeproceedings,an
opportunity to explain ones side or an opportunity to seek a
reconsiderationoftheactionorrulingcomplainedof.Where,asinthe
instantcase,petitionerPHILPHOSagreedtofileitspositionpaperwith
theMediatorArbiterandtoconsiderthecasesubmittedfordecisionon
thebasisofthepositionpapersfiledbytheparties, therewassufficient
compliance with the requirement of due process, as petitioner was
affordedreasonableopportunitytopresentitsside.Moreover,petitioner
couldhave,ifitsodesired,insistedonahearingtoconfrontandexamine
thewitnessesoftheotherparty.Butitdidnot;instead,itoptedtosubmit
itspositionpaperwiththeMediatorArbiter.Besides, petitionerhadall
theopportunitytoventilateitsargumentsinitsappealtotheSecretaryof
Labor.
Same; Labor Unions; A supervisory union cannot represent the
professional/technical and confidential employees of petitioner whose
positionswefindtobemoreoftherankandfilethansupervisory.As
regardsthesecondissue,wearewithpetitionerthatbeingasupervisory
union, respondentPMPIcannotrepresentthe professional/technical and
confidentialemployeesofpetitionerwhosepositionswefindtobemore
oftherankandfilethansupervisory.
Same;R.A.6715;Classificationofemployees.Withtheenactment
inMarch1989ofR.A.6715,employeeswerethereunderreclassifiedinto
three (3) groups, namely: (a) managerial employees, (b) supervisory
employees,and(c)rankandfileemployees.Thecategoryofsupervisory
employeesisonceagainrecognizedinthepresentlaw.
_______________
*FIRSTDIVISION.

336

336

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PhilippinePhosphateFertilizerCorp.vs.Torres
Same; Labor Code, Art. 212; Supervisory employee defined.
Article 212, par. (m), of the Labor Code, as amended, provides that
(s)upervisoryemployeesarethosewho,intheinterestoftheemployer,
effectivelyrecommendsuchmanagerialactionsiftheexerciseofsuch
authorityisnotmerelyroutinaryorclericalinnaturebutrequirestheuse
of independent judgment. The definition of managerial employees is
limitedtothosehavingauthoritytohireandfire,whilethosewhoonly
recommendeffectivelythehiringorfiringortransferofpersonnelare
consideredclosertorankandfileemployees.Theexclusionthereforeof
midlevelexecutivesfromthecategoryofmanagershasbroughtabouta
third classification, the supervisory employees. The peculiar role of
supervisors is such that while they are not managers, when they
recommend action implementing management policy or ask for the
disciplineordismissalofsubordinates,theyidentifywiththeinterestsof
theemployerandmayactcontrarytotheinterestsoftherankandfile.
Same; LaborUnions; Theseprofessional/technicalemployeesare
performingnonsupervisoryfunctions,hence,theyshouldbeclassifiedas
rankandfileemployees.Consequently,theycannotbeallowedtojoina
unioncomposedofsupervisors.ThecertificationofPersonnelOfficer
Duhaylungsodthatitsprofessional/technicalemployeesoccupypositions
thatarenonsupervisoryisevidencethatsaidemployeesbelongtothe
rank and file. Quite obviously, these professional/technical employees
cannot effectively recommend managerial actions with the use of
independent judgment because they are under the supervision of
superintendents and supervisors. Because it is unrefuted that these
professional/technical employees are performing nonsupervisory
functions,henceconsideredadmitted,theyshouldbeclassified,atleast
forpurposesofthiscase,asrankandfileemployees.Consequently,these
professional/technical employees cannot be allowed to join a union
composedofsupervisors.Conversely,supervisoryemployeescannotjoin
alabororganizationofemployeesundertheirsupervisionbutmayvalidly
formaseparateorganizationoftheirown.ThisisprovidedinArt.245of
theLaborCode,asamendedbyR.A.No.6715,towit:xxxxManagerial
employeesarenoteligibletojoin,assistorformanylabororganization.
Supervisoryemployeesshallnotbeeligibleformembershipinalabor
organizationoftherankandfileemployeesbutmayjoin,assistorform
separatelabororganizationsoftheirown.
Same;Same;Theintentofthelawistoavoidasituationwhere

supervisor s would merge with the rank and file, or where the
supervisorslabororganizationwouldrepresentconflictinginterests.
Thisispreciselythesituationwhichthelawprohibits.Itwouldcreatean
obvious
337

VOL.231,MARCH17,1994
337
PhilippinePhosphateFertilizerCorp.vs.Torres
conflictofviewsamongthemembers,oratleastbetweentwo(2)groups
of members espousing opposing interests. The intent of the law is to
avoidasituationwheresupervisorswouldmergewiththerankandfile,
orwherethesupervisorslabororganizationwouldrepresentconflicting
interests,especiallywhere,asinthecaseatbar,thesupervisorswillbe
comminglingwiththoseemployeeswhomtheydirectlysuperviseintheir
ownbargainingunit.Membersofthesupervisoryunionmightrefuseto
carry out disciplinary measures against their comember rank and file
employees.
Same;Same;Whatthelawprohibitsisaunionwhosemembership
comprises of supervisors merging with the rank and file employees
becausethisiswheretheconflictofinterestmayariseintheareasof
discipline,collectivebargainingandstrikes.Supervisorshavetheright
toformtheirownunionorlabororganization.Whatthelawprohibitsisa
union whose membership comprises of supervisors merging with the
rankandfileemployees becausethisiswhereconflictofinterestsmay
arise in the areas of discipline, collective bargaining and strikes. The
professional/technical employees of petitioner therefore may join the
existingrankandfileunion,orformaunionseparateanddistinctfrom
theexistingunionorganizedbytherankandfileemployeesofthesame
company.

PETITIONforcertioraritosetasideadecisionoftheSecretary
ofLabor.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Quiroz,Dumas&HenaresLawOfficesforpetitioner.
Seno, Mendoza & Associates for private respondent
PhilphosMovementforProgress,Inc.
BELLOSILLO,J.:
PHILIPPINE PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER CORPORATION

(PHILPHOS)assailsthedecisionoftheSecretaryofLaborof7
August1990affirmingtheorderoftheMediatorArbiterof28
March 1990 which directed the immediate conduct of a
certification election among the supervisory, professional or
technical,andconfidentialemployeesofpetitionercorporation.
On 7 July 1989, Philphos Movement for progress, Inc.
(PMPI for brevity), filed with the Department of Labor and
Employment a petition for certification election among the
supervisoryem
338

33
8

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

PhilippinePhosphateFertilizerCorp.vs.Torres
ployeesofpetitioner,allegingthatas asupervisoryunionduly
registeredwiththeDepartmentofLaborandEmploymentitwas
seeking to represent the supervisory employees of Philippine
PhosphateFertilizerCorporation.
ThepetitionforcertificationelectionfiledbyPMPIwasnot
opposed by PHILPHOS. In fact, on 11 August 1989,
PHILPHOS submitted a position paper with the Mediator
Arbiterstatingthatitsmanagementwelcomedthecreationofa
supervisoryemployeesunionprovidedthenecessaryrequisites
oflawwereproperlyobserved,butexemptingfromtheunionits
superintendents who were managerial and not supervisory
employees astheymanagedadivision,subdivisionorsection,
andwerevestedwithpowersorprerogativestolaydownand
executemanagementpolicies.PHILPHOSalsoassertedthatits
professional or technical employees were not within the
definitionofsupervisoryemployeesundertheLaborCode as
theywereimmediatelyunderthedirectionandsupervisionofits
superintendentsandsupervisors.Moreover,theprofessionaland
technicalemployeesdidnothaveastaffofworkersunderthem.
Consequently, petitioner prayed for the exclusion of its
superintendents and professional/technicalemployees fromthe
PMPIsupervisoryunion.

On13October1989, MediatorArbiter RodolfoS.Milado


issuedanorderdirectingtheholdingofacertificationelection
among the supervisory employees of petitioner, excluding
therefrom the superintendents and the professional and
technicalemployees. Healsodirectedthepartiestoattendthe
preelectionconferenceon19April1990forthedetermination
ofthemechanicsoftheelectionprocessandthequalifications
andeligibilityofthoseallowedtovote.
On15November1989,PMPIfiledanamendedpetitionwith
theMediatorArbiterwhereinitsoughttorepresentnotonlythe
supervisory employees of petitioner but also its professional/
technicalandconfidentialemployees.Theamendedpetitionwas
filedinviewoftheamendmentofthePMPIConstitutionwhich
included in its membership the professional/technical and
confidentialemployees.
On14December1989,thepartiesthereinagreedtosubmit
their respective position papers and to consider the amended
petitionsubmittedfordecisiononthebasisthereofandrelated
339

VOL.231,MARCH17,1994
339
PhilippinePhosphateFertilizerCorp.vs.Torres
documents.
On28March1990,MediatorArbiterMiladoissuedanorder
grantingthepetitionanddirectingtheholdingofacertification
election among the supervisory, professional (engineers,
analysts, mechanics, accountants, nurses, midwives, etc.),
technical, and confidential employees1 to comprise the
proposedbargainingunit.
On 16 April 1990, PHILPHOS appealed the order of 28
March1990totheSecretaryofLaborandEmploymentwhoon
7 August 1990 rendered a decision through Undersecretary
Bienvenido Laguesma dismissing the appeal. PHILPHOS
movedforreconsiderationbutthesamewasdenied;hence,the
instantpetitionalleginggraveabuseofdiscretiononthepartof
publicrespondentsinrenderingtheassailedrulings.

On8July1991,thisCourtissuedatemporaryrestraining
order enjoining respondents from holding the certification
electionamongpetitioners supervisory,professional/technical,
andconfidentialemployeesscheduledon12July1991.
Therearetwo(2)issuesraisedbypetitioner:(1) whetherit
wasdenieddueprocessintheproceedingsbeforerespondent
MediatorArbiter; and, (2) whether its professional/technical
and confidentialemployees mayvalidlyjoinrespondentPMPI
unionwhichiscomposedofsupervisors.
PHILPHOS claims that it was denied due process when
respondent MediatorArbiter granted the amended petition of
respondent PMPI without according PHILPHOS a new
opportunitytobeheard.
WedonotseeitthewayPHILPHOSdoeshere.Theessence
of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as
appliedtoadministrativeproceedings,anopportunitytoexplain
ones side oranopportunity toseekareconsideration ofthe
actionorrulingcomplainedof.2 Where,asintheinstantcase,
petitionerPHILPHOSagreedtofileitspositionpaperwiththe
MediatorArbiterandtoconsiderthecasesubmittedfordecision
onthebasisofthepositionpapersfiledbytheparties,therewas
sufficientcompliancewiththerequirementofdueprocess,as
_______________
1Rollo,p.56.
2PLDTv.NLRC,G.R.No.71499,19July1989,175SCRA437.

340

34
0

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

PhilippinePhosphateFertilizerCorp.vs.Torres
petitioner was afforded reasonable opportunity to present its
side.3 Moreover,petitionercouldhave,ifitsodesired, insisted
onahearingtoconfrontandexaminethewitnessesoftheother
party. But it did not;4 instead, it opted to submit its position
paperwiththeMediatorArbiter.Besides,petitionerhadallthe
opportunity to ventilate its arguments in its appeal to the

SecretaryofLabor.
Asregardsthesecondissue,wearewithpetitionerthatbeing
a supervisory union, respondent PMPI cannot represent the
professional/technical and confidentialemployees ofpetitioner
whosepositionswefindtobemoreoftherankandfilethan
supervisory.
WiththeenactmentinMarch1989ofR.A.6715,employees
werethereunder reclassifiedintothree(3)groups,namely:(a)
managerialemployees,(b)supervisoryemployees,and(c)rank
andfileemployees.Thecategoryofsupervisoryemployeesis
onceagainrecognizedinthepresentlaw.
Article 212, par. (m), of the Labor Code, as amended,
provides that (s)upervisory employees are those who, in the
interest of the employer, effectively recommend such
managerialactionsiftheexerciseofsuchauthorityisnotmerely
routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of
independentjudgment.Thedefinitionofmanagerialemployees
islimitedtothosehavingauthoritytohireandfire,whilethose
whoonlyrecommendeffectivelythehiringorfiringortransfer
ofpersonnelareconsideredclosertorankandfileemployees.
The exclusion therefore of midlevel executives from the
categoryofmanagershasbroughtaboutathirdclassification,
thesupervisoryemployees.The peculiarroleofsupervisorsis
suchthatwhiletheyarenotmanagers,whentheyrecommend
action implementing management policy or ask for the
disciplineordismissalofsubordinates,theyidentifywiththe
interestsoftheemployerandmayactcontrarytotheinterestsof
therankandfile.5
_______________

3Maglutacv.NLRC,G.R.78345,21September1990,189SCRA767.
4ChuaQuav.Clave,G.R.49549,30August1990,189SCRA117.
5AtlasLithographicServices,Inc.v.Laguesma,G.R.No.96566,6January

1992,205SCRA12.
341

VOL.231,MARCH17,1994
PhilippinePhosphateFertilizerCorp.vs.Torres

341

In its position paper submitted to the MediatorArbiter,


petitioner described the positions and functions of its
professional/ technical employees, (engineers, analysts,
mechanics,accountants,nursesandmidwives).Theguidelines,
whichwerenotrefutedbyrespondentPMPI,state:
xxxx ProfessionalandTechnicalpositionsarethosewhoseprimary
dutyconsistsoftheperformanceofworkdirectlyrelatedtomanagement
programs;whocustomarily,regularlyandroutinarilyexercisejudgment
intheapplicationofconcepts,methods,systemsandproceduresintheir
respective fields of specialization; who regularly and directly assist a
managerial and/or supervisory employee, execute under general
supervision,workalongspecializedortechnicallinesrequiringspecial
training,experienceorknowledge,orexecuteundergeneralsupervision
specialassignmentsandtasksxxxx Theyareimmediatelyunderthe
directionandsupervisionofsupervisorsorsuperintendents.Theyhaveno
menunder them but areregularlycalled uponbytheir supervisors or
superintendentsonsometechnicalmatters.6

Moreover, Herculano A. Duhaylungsod, Personnel Officer of


petitioner, attested that there was no community of interests
between the supervisors of petitioner and the
professional/technical employees; that as of 25 July 1990,
personnelrecordsshowedthattherewere125 supervisors and
271 professional/ technical employees; that of the 271
professional/technicalemployees, 150weredirectlyunderand
being supervised by supervisors, while the rest were staff
membersofsuperintendents.7
ThecertificationofPersonnelOfficerDuhaylungsodthatits
professional/technicalemployeesoccupypositionsthatarenon
supervisoryisevidencethatsaidemployeesbelongtotherank
and file.8 Quite obviously, these professional/technical
employees cannot effectively recommend managerial actions
withtheuseofindependentjudgmentbecausetheyareunderthe
supervision of superintendents and supervisors. Because it is
unrefuted that these professional/technical employees are
performingnon
_______________

6Rollo,pp.3536.

7Rollo,pp.8889.
8 Hipolitov.FerrerCalleja,G.R.No.81830,1October1990,190SCRA

182.
342

34
2

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

PhilippinePhosphateFertilizerCorp.vs.Torres
supervisoryfunctions, henceconsideredadmitted,they should
beclassified,atleastforpurposesofthiscase,asrankandfile
employees. Consequently, these professional/technical
employees cannot be allowed to join a union composed of
supervisors. Conversely, supervisory employees cannot join a
labororganizationofemployeesundertheirsupervisionbutmay
validly form a separate organization of their own.9 This is
providedinArt.245oftheLaborCode,asamendedbyR.A.
No.6715,towit:
xxxxManagerialemployeesarenoteligibletojoin,assistorformany
labor organization. Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for
membershipinalabororganizationoftherankandfileemployeesbut
mayjoin,assistorformseparatelabororganizationsoftheirown.

RespondentPMPIissupposedtobeaunionof125supervisors.
If the professional/technical employees are included as
members,andrecordsshowthattheyare271inallormuch
morethanthesupervisors,thenPMPIwillturnouttobearank
andfileunionwiththesupervisorsasmembers.
This is precisely the situation which the law prohibits. It
wouldcreateanobviousconflictofviewsamongthemembers,
or at least between two (2) groups of members espousing
opposinginterests.Theintentofthelawistoavoidasituation
wheresupervisorswouldmergewiththerankandfile,orwhere
thesupervisorslabororganizationwouldrepresentconflicting
interests,especiallywhere,asinthecaseatbar,thesupervisors
willbecomminglingwiththoseemployeeswhomtheydirectly
supervise in their own bargaining unit. Members of the
supervisory union might refuse to carry out disciplinary
measuresagainsttheircomemberrankandfileemployees.10

Supervisorshavetherighttoformtheirownunionorlabor
organization. What the law prohibits is a union whose
membership comprises of supervisors merging with the rank
andfile employees because thisis where conflictof interests
mayariseintheareasofdiscipline,collectivebargainingand
strikes.11The
_______________

9 Adamson&Adamson,Inc.v.TheCourtofIndustrialRelations,No.L

35120,31January1984,127SCRA268.
10SeeNote5.
11Ibid.

343

VOL.231,MARCH17,1994
343
PhilippinePhosphateFertilizerCorp.vs.Torres
professional/technical employees of petitioner therefore may
jointheexisting rankandfile union, orformaunionseparate
anddistinctfromtheexistingunionorganizedbytherankand
fileemployeesofthesamecompany.
Astothe confidentialemployees ofthepetitioner,thelatter
hasnotshownanyprooforcompellingreasontoexcludethem
from joining respondent PMPI and from participating in the
certification election, unless these confidential employees are
thesameprofessional/technicalemployeeswhomwefindtobe
occupyingrankandfilepositions.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisGRANTED. Thedecisionof
respondentSecretaryofLaborof7August1990,aswellasthe
orderoftherespondentMediatorArbiterof28March1990,is
SETASIDE.Theprofessional/technicalemployeesofpetitioner
Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer Corporation (PHILPHOS) are
declareddisqualifiedfromaffiliatingwithrespondentPhilphos
MovementforProgress,Inc.(PMPI).
TheDepartmentofLaborisdirectedtoorderimmediately
the conduct of certification election among the supervisory
employees of petitioner, particularly excluding therefrom its
professionalandtechnicalemployees.
SOORDERED.

Cruz(Chairman),Davide,Jr.,Quiason and Kapunan,


JJ.,concur.
Petitiongranted;Assaileddecisionsetaside.
Note.Supervisory employees cannot join unions of rank
and file employees, but may form, assist, or join labor
organizationsoftheirown(Arizalavs.CourtofAppeals, 189
SCRA584).
o0o
344