Coca-Cola FEMSA Philippines, Inc. vs. Coca-Cola FEMSA Phils., MOP Manufacturing Unit Coordinators and Supervisors Union – All Workers Alliance Trade Unions

An employer that files successive petitions arising from the same certification election proceedings, involving the same essential issue of whether the bargaining unit is composed of managerial or otherwise ineligible employees, and fails to disclose the pendency of the other case in its certification against forum shopping, is guilty of forum shopping and of noncompliance with Rule 45, Section 7 in relation to Rule 42, Section 2 of the Rules of Court.

CCPI is a corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of non-alcoholic beverages. The Union is a legitimate labor organization representing the regular coordination and supervisory employees of CCPI's Misamis Oriental plant. Under Article 271 of the Labor Code (the "Bystander Rule"), an employer is not a party to a certification election proceeding and may not oppose the same; its participation is limited to being notified of the petition and submitting the list of employees during the pre-election conference. The SOLE had previously ruled in a January 26, 2016 Decision that similarly situated employees at CCPI's Canlubang, Laguna plant were supervisory, not managerial — a ruling the Med-Arbiter took administrative notice of in the present case.

CCPI is a corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of non-alcoholic beverages. The Union is a legitimate labor organization representing the regular coordination and supervisory employees of CCPI's Misamis Oriental plant. On July 11, 2016, the Union filed a petition for certification election with DOLE Regional Office X, alleging that the regular coordinator and supervisor employees of the Misamis Oriental plant comprised an appropriate, unorganized bargaining unit; that 26 of the 39 members of the unit were Union members; and that no certification election had been conducted in the bargaining unit for 12 months prior to the filing of the petition.

The Med-Arbiter summoned the parties to a preliminary conference. CCPI, impleaded as respondent-employer, sought leave to comment on the petition, which was granted. In its comment, CCPI argued that the employees in the bargaining unit — bearing job titles such as Line Production Supervisor, Production Process Coordinator, Maintenance Planning Coordinator, Line Production Coordinator, Line Maintenance Coordinator, Maintenance Supervisor, Auxiliary Maintenance Supervisor, Line Quality Supervisor, Process Integrity Coordinator, Quality Process Coordinator, Quality Assurance Coordinator, Warehouse Coordinator, Warehouse Supervisor, and Preventive Maintenance Supervisor — were not eligible to organize for collective bargaining because they were managerial employees with the power to lay down and execute management policies and to hire, transfer, suspend, layoff, recall, discharge, assign, or discipline employees. The Union replied that under Article 271 of the Labor Code, CCPI had no right to oppose the certification election, and cited a January 26, 2016 SOLE Decision ruling that similarly situated employees at CCPI's Canlubang, Laguna plant were supervisory employees. The Union further argued that the bargaining-unit employees only had recommendatory authority as regards managerial actions and reported to managerial employees such as the Production Maintenance Manager, Manufacturing Executive, Quality Assurance Head, and Quality Head.

On August 18, 2016, the Med-Arbiter granted the Union's petition, taking administrative notice of the Canlubang case and finding that nothing in the job descriptions vested the supervisors or coordinators with managerial attributes; they merely had authority to effectively recommend managerial actions and reported to higher-level managers. The Med-Arbiter also stressed that the employer was a mere bystander in certification election proceedings. Aggrieved, CCPI assailed the order via certiorari before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 07723-MIN. Meanwhile, the certification election proceeded on October 14, 2016, under CCPI's protest. The DOLE Regional Election Officer denied the protest, the votes were canvassed, and the Union won. On January 10, 2017, the Med-Arbiter certified the Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the regular supervisory and coordinator employees of the Misamis Oriental plant. CCPI appealed to the SOLE, arguing that the certification election should not have taken place given the pendency of its CA petition and that two employees not part of the bargaining unit were allowed to vote. The SOLE denied the appeal on August 7, 2017. CCPI separately assailed the SOLE's resolution before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 152835.

In March 2017, while its CA petition remained pending, CCPI reorganized the Misamis Oriental plant's manufacturing unit and abolished the positions held by Union employees, issuing notices of "internal movement" to 24 employees whose job titles were changed to "heads" of various company operation areas. The CA rendered its assailed Decision on November 22, 2017, dismissing CCPI's petition and sustaining the Med-Arbiter's finding that the employees were supervisory — their main task was to direct rank-and-file workers and ensure compliance with ready-made policies, they did not possess the distinctive characteristics of managerial employees, they reported directly to higher-level managers, and they only made recommendations in disciplinary cases. The CA also noted that CCPI had no reason to deny the right to organize to its Misamis Oriental supervisory employees since it had already granted the same right to the same class of employees in its Cebu, Tacloban, and Bacolod plants. CCPI's motion for reconsideration was denied on March 26, 2018, the CA ruling that the reorganization did not change the employees' status as the changes were "mere nomenclature."

• Employee Classification: Petitioner argued that the Med-Arbiter and the CA erred in ruling that the employees in the bargaining unit represented by the Union were supervisory employees, maintaining that they were managerial employees with the power to lay down and execute management policies and to hire, transfer, suspend, layoff, recall, discharge, assign, or discipline employees.
• Mootness by Reorganization: Petitioner argued that the CA erred in refusing to rule that the petition for certification election had been rendered moot and academic by the March 2017 reorganization of the Misamis Oriental plant's manufacturing unit, which abolished the positions held by Union members.
• No Forum Shopping: Petitioner denied committing forum shopping, arguing that CA-G.R. SP No. 152835 arose from a different cause of action because it assailed the Med-Arbiter's approval of the certification election results despite alleged irregularities, while the present petition assailed the Med-Arbiter's grant of the petition for certification election.

• Forum Shopping: Respondent raised the threshold issue of forum shopping, alleging that CCPI's present petition failed to disclose the pendency of CA-G.R. SP No. 152835, wherein CCPI assailed the August 7, 2017 SOLE Resolution before the CA. Respondent argued that although CA-G.R. SP No. 152835 was directed at the Med-Arbiter's January 10, 2017 Order certifying the Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent, it nevertheless shared the same ultimate objective as the present petition — the defeat of the Union members' exercise of their rights to self-organization and collective bargaining.
• Bystander Rule: Respondent argued that under Article 271 of the Labor Code, CCPI had no right to oppose the certification election, and that the employees in the bargaining unit were supervisory, citing the January 26, 2016 SOLE Decision involving CCPI's Canlubang plant.

• Forum Shopping: Whether CCPI committed forum shopping by filing the present petition while CA-G.R. SP No. 152835 was pending, without disclosing the latter's pendency in its certification against forum shopping.
• Employee Classification: Whether the employees in the bargaining unit represented by the Union are managerial or supervisory employees.
• Employer Standing: Whether the employer has standing to oppose a petition for certification election on the ground that the bargaining unit includes managerial or other ineligible employees.
• Mootness: Whether the March 2017 reorganization of the Misamis Oriental plant's manufacturing unit, which abolished the positions held by Union members, rendered the case moot and academic.

• Forum Shopping: Yes. CCPI was guilty of forum shopping and of failure to comply with the requirements for petitions for review under Rule 45, Section 7 in relation to Rule 42, Section 2, for failing to disclose the pendency of CA-G.R. SP No. 152835, which arose from the same certification election proceedings and involved the same essential issue of employee eligibility.
• Employee Classification: The Court was bound by the concurring factual findings of the CA and the Med-Arbiter that the employees were supervisory, not managerial, at the time of the filing of the petition for certification election; such factual findings are conclusive and binding in a Rule 45 petition.
• Employer Standing: No. An employer is a mere bystander in certification election proceedings and lacks standing to oppose the same, even on the allegation that some participating employees are managerial; the determination of eligibility is a factual issue best resolved in inclusion-exclusion proceedings.
• Mootness: No. The reorganization did not alter the composition and integrity of the bargaining unit, as the new positions were mere consolidations or re-introductions of the abolished positions with no change in supervisory character.

• Forum Shopping: Forum shopping is the repetitive availment of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues. While strictly speaking there was no identity of causes of action between the present petition and CA-G.R. SP No. 152835 — because CCPI had no cause of action against the Union, as the filing of a petition for certification election does not violate any right of the employer — the essence of forum shopping is the vexatiously repetitive filing of suits involving the same issues over matters arising from the same transaction and essential facts. Both cases arose from the Union's petition for certification election and both involved the same essential issue: whether the certification election may proceed given the allegation that the bargaining unit is composed of managerial or ineligible employees. By failing to disclose the pendency of CA-G.R. SP No. 152835, CCPI exposed the Court to the possibility of rendering conflicting rulings on the common issues. Rule 42, Section 2, made applicable to petitions for review via Rule 45, Section 7, expressly requires petitioners to certify under oath that they have not commenced any other action involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the CA, or any other tribunal. CCPI's noncompliance alone merited dismissal.

• Employee Classification: The determination of whether union membership comprises managerial and/or supervisory employees is a factual issue best left for resolution in inclusion-exclusion proceedings. The Court's jurisdiction in cases brought from the CA via Rule 45 is generally limited to reviewing errors of law or jurisdiction; the findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding. The concurring findings of the CA and the Med-Arbiter that the employees were supervisory were therefore binding. The employees' main task was to direct rank-and-file workers and ensure compliance with ready-made policies; they did not possess the distinctive characteristics of managerial employees; they reported directly to higher-level managers; and they only made recommendations in disciplinary cases.

• Employer Standing: Under Article 271 of the Labor Code, an employer is not a party to a certification election proceeding and may not oppose the same. The employer's participation is limited to being notified of the petition and submitting the list of employees during the pre-election conference. Even an allegation that some employees are managerial does not lend the employer legal personality to block the certification election. The choice of bargaining representative is the exclusive concern of the employees; the employer cannot have any partisan interest therein. This rule ensures that the bargaining representative owes its loyalty to the employees alone and is chosen free from management influence.

• Mootness: The reorganization did not result in any significant changes to the bargaining unit. The new positions were either consolidations of existing positions without changes in level or mere changes in nomenclature. The transfer records showed that bargaining-unit members were transferred from old positions to correspondingly renamed new positions or to different positions on the same level. The new positions all belonged to the same level in the plant's hierarchy as the abolished positions — they were first-line managers who supervised rank-and-file workers. While some positions were given responsibility for setting "action plans," such responsibility was limited to planning for the improvement of existing policies or standards set by superiors or external entities. There was no proof that the new positions were empowered to make hiring or disciplinary actions beyond conducting interviews, performance reviews, overseeing attendance, and initiating administrative due process. All new positions reported to higher-level managers. The reorganization thus did not alter the supervisory character of the positions or the composition and integrity of the bargaining unit, which had already given the Union a mandate through a validly held certification election.

• Employer as Bystander Rule — Under Article 271 of the Labor Code, an employer is not a party to a certification election proceeding and has no concomitant right to oppose the same. The employer's participation is limited to: (1) being notified or informed of petitions of such nature; and (2) submitting the list of employees during the pre-election conference should the Med-Arbiter act favorably on the petition. The employer lacks personality to dispute the election and has no right to interfere, even on the allegation that some participating employees are managerial. The doctrine is grounded on the rationale that the employees' bargaining representative should be chosen free from any extraneous influence of management.

• Forum Shopping — Three-Fold Test and Ultimate Standard — The three-fold test for forum shopping requires identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought. However, the ultimate standard is the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigant by a party who asks different courts or agencies to rule on the same or related causes and/or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, creating the possibility of conflicting decisions. Failure to disclose the pendency of a related case in the certification against forum shopping is a ground for dismissal of the petition, distinct from but related to the act of forum shopping itself.

• Supervisory vs. Managerial Employees — Article 219(m) of the Labor Code defines supervisory employees as "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." Managerial employees are vested with the power to lay down and execute management policies and to hire, transfer, suspend, layoff, recall, discharge, assign, or discipline employees. The determination of whether employees are managerial or supervisory is a factual issue best resolved in inclusion-exclusion proceedings, not by the employer in an opposition to a certification election petition.

• Conclusiveness of CA Factual Findings in Rule 45 Labor Cases — In labor cases, petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 are limited to determining whether the CA was correct in finding the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion and jurisdictional errors on the part of the lower tribunal. The findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding; the Supreme Court does not entertain factual issues or analyze evidence anew. Factual findings of labor officials, supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and even finality.

• "Clearly, by assailing every order issued by the MA in the course of the certification election proceedings, CCPI committed forum shopping. Likewise, by failing to disclose the existence and pendency of CA-G.R. SP No. 152835, CCPI failed to comply with Rule 45, Section 7 in relation to Rule 42, Section 2 of the Rules of Court. This defect alone merits the dismissal of the present petition." — This passage states the ratio decidendi on the procedural ground of dismissal: the employer's repetitive filings and nondisclosure constituted forum shopping warranting summary dismissal.

• "[E]ven without the express provision of Section 12 of RA No. 9481, the 'Bystander Rule' is already well entrenched in this jurisdiction. It has been consistently held in a number of cases that a certification election is the sole concern of the workers, except when the employer itself has to file the petition pursuant to Article 259 of the Labor Code, as amended, but even after such filing its role in the certification process ceases and becomes merely a bystander." — This passage, quoted from Holy Child Catholic School vs. Sto. Tomas, articulates the canonical formulation of the Bystander Rule and its rationale — that the bargaining representative must owe its loyalty to the employees alone.

• "Since the new positions are mere consolidations or re-introductions of the abolished positions, we find that the reorganization did not change the supervisory character of the positions in the bargaining unit." — This passage establishes the holding on the mootness issue: a reorganization that merely renames or consolidates positions without altering their supervisory character does not render a certification election case moot.

• Holy Child Catholic School vs. Hon. Sto. Tomas, 714 Phil. 427 (2013) — Controlling precedent on the Bystander Rule. The Court held that an employer lacks personality to oppose a certification election even on the ground that the bargaining unit includes managerial or non-eligible employees, and that the determination of employee classification is a factual issue best resolved in inclusion-exclusion proceedings. Extensively quoted and applied in the present case.

• Republic of the Phils. vs. Kawashima Textile Mfg., Phils., Inc., 581 Phil. 359 (2008) — Cited for the proposition that an employer has no right to participate in a certification election unless requested to bargain collectively under Article 270 of the Labor Code. The Court relied on this case in articulating the Bystander Rule.

• Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Santos, Jr. et al., 291-A Phil. 451 (1993) — Cited for the principle that judicial review by the Supreme Court in labor cases does not extend to evaluating the sufficiency of evidence but is limited to issues of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion.

• United Pepsi-Cola Supervisory Union vs. Judge Laguesma, 351 Phil. 244 (1998) — Cited for the definition of first-line managers as those who direct operating employees only and do not supervise other managers, supporting the finding that the reorganized positions remained supervisory in character.

• Article 271 (formerly 258-A), Labor Code — The "Bystander Rule." Provides that in all cases, whether the petition for certification election is filed by an employer or a legitimate labor organization, the employer shall not be considered a party thereto with a concomitant right to oppose. The employer's participation is limited to: (1) being notified or informed of petitions of such nature; and (2) submitting the list of employees during the pre-election conference. Applied to deny CCPI standing to oppose the Union's petition.

• Article 219(m), Labor Code — Defines supervisory employees as "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." Applied to confirm that the bargaining-unit employees, who only had recommendatory authority and reported to higher-level managers, were supervisory.

• Rule 45, Section 7 and Rule 42, Section 2, Rules of Court — Require a certification against forum shopping in petitions for review, stating that the petitioner has not commenced any other action involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the CA, or any other tribunal, and undertaking to inform the courts within five days if a similar action is filed or is pending. Applied to find that CCPI's failure to disclose CA-G.R. SP No. 152835 constituted noncompliance warranting dismissal.

• Rule 2, Section 2, Rules of Court — Defines a cause of action as the act or omission by which a party violates the right of another. Cited to explain that CCPI had no cause of action against the Union, since the filing of a petition for certification election does not violate any right of the employer.

Hernando (Acting Chairperson), Inting, and Dimaampao, JJ., concurred. Perlas-Bernabe, S.A.J., was on official leave.