This argument must fail.

Confidential employees are defined as those who (1) assist or

act in a confidential capacity, in regard (2) to persons who formulate, determine, and
effectuate management policies in the field of labor relations.1 The two criteria are
cumulative, and both must be met if an employee is to be considered a confidential
employee - that is, the confidential relationship must exist between the employee and
his supervisor, and the supervisor must handle the prescribed responsibilities relating
to labor relations. The exclusion from bargaining units of employees who, in the normal
course of their duties, become aware of management policies relating to labor relations
is a principal objective sought to be accomplished by the "confidential employee rule."2

Confidential employees are defined as those who (1) assist or act in a confidential
capacity, (2) to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies
in the field of labor relations. The two (2) criteria are cumulative, and both must be met
if an employee is to be considered a confidential employee – that is, the confidential
relationship must exist between the employee and his supervisor, and the supervisor
must handle the prescribed responsibilities relating to labor relations. 3The exclusion
from bargaining units of employees who, in the normal course of their duties, become
aware of management policies relating to labor relations is a principal objective sought
to be accomplished by the "confidential employee rule." There is no showing in this case
that the secretaries/clerks and checkers assisted or acted in a confidential capacity to
managerial employees and obtained confidential information relating to labor relations
policies. And even assuming that they had exposure to internal business operations of
the company, respondent claimed, this is not per se ground for their exclusion in the
bargaining unit of the daily-paid rank-and-file employees. 4

Based on the standards set by previous jurisprudence, Vallota’s position as Junior

Programmer is analogous to the second class of positions of trust and confidence.
Though he did not physically handle money or property, he became privy to
confidential data or information by the nature of his functions. At a time when the most
sensitive of information is found not printed on paper but stored on hard drives and

1Sugbuanon Rural Bank, Inc., v. Laguesma, G.R. No. 381 Phil. 414, 424 (2000), citing San Miguel Corp. Supervisors
and Exempt Employees Union v. Laguesma, supra note 1, at 374, which cited Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. NLRB
(CA6) 398 F2d. 689 (1968), Ladish Co., 178 NLRB 90 (1969) and B.F. Goodrich Co., 115 NLRB 722 (1956).

2Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Asia Brewery v. Asia Brewery, Inc., G.R. 162025, August 3, 2010, 626
SCRA 376, 387, citing San Miguel Corp. Supervisors and Exempt Employees Union v. Laguesma, supra note 1, at
374-375, which cited Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. NLRB, id., Ladish Co., id., and B.F. Goodrich Co., id.

3TUNAY NA PAGKAKAISA NG MANGGAGAWA SA ASIA BREWERY vs ASIA BREWERY, INC., G.R. No. 162025,
August 3, 2010.

4TUNAY NA PAGKAKAISA NG MANGGAGAWA SA ASIA BREWERY vs ASIA BREWERY, INC., G.R. No. 162025,
August 3, 2010.
servers, an employee who handles or has access to data in electronic form naturally
becomes the unwilling recipient of confidential information.5

5PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE AND ASSURANCE EMPLOYEE LABOR UNION and SANDY T. VALLOTA vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE AND ASSURANCE INC., and/or
JOCELYN RETIZOS, G.R. No. 185335, June 13, 2012.