Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corporation vs. Laguesma

In an establishment where there is no certified bargaining agent for a particular group of employees, a certification election shall automatically be conducted upon petition by a legitimate labor organization; the employer lacks legal personality to question the election on the ground that the employees are actually managerial, and such objection must be raised in exclusion-inclusion proceedings.

Petitioner PT&T is a telecommunications company that employed roughly 2,500 employees all over the country. Its rank-and-file employees were represented by a certified bargaining agent, while its supervisory employees had no certified bargaining agent. Private respondent PT&T Supervisory Employees Union-APSOTEU is a legitimate labor organization registered with the Department of Labor and Employment; it denied affiliation with the Associated Labor Union (ALU) and claimed affiliation with the Associated Professional, Supervisory Office, Technical Employees Union (APSOTEU), a separate and distinct national federation. The Labor Code governs certification elections in unorganized establishments and provides that supervisory employees may not join a rank-and-file labor organization but may form their own.

Petitioner Philippine Telegraph & Telephone Corporation (PT&T) is a telecommunications company that employed roughly 2,500 employees all over the country. Its rank-and-file employees were already represented by a certified bargaining agent, but its supervisory employees had no certified bargaining agent. Private respondent PT&T Supervisory Employees Union-APSOTEU (UNION) is a legitimate labor organization duly registered with the Department of Labor and Employment. On 22 October 1990, the UNION filed a petition before the Industrial Relations Decision of the Department of Labor and Employment praying for a certification election among PT&T's supervisory employees. On 29 October 1990, the UNION amended its petition to allege that PT&T was an unorganized establishment employing roughly 100 supervisory employees from whose ranks the bargaining unit sought to be established would be constituted.

On 22 November 1990, PT&T moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the UNION members were performing managerial functions and thus were not merely supervisory employees. PT&T also alleged that a certified bargaining unit already existed among its rank-and-file employees, which barred the filing of the petition. On 27 November 1990, the UNION opposed the motion, contending that under the Labor Code supervisory employees are not eligible to join the labor organization of the rank-and-file employees although they may form their own. On 4 December 1990, PT&T filed its reply and manifested that it is the function of an employee which is determinative of whether the employee is managerial or supervisory.

On 11 December 1990, the Med-Arbiter granted the petition and ordered that a certification election be conducted among the supervisory personnel of PT&T. PT&T appealed to the Secretary of Labor and Employment. On 24 May 1991, PT&T filed a supplemental appeal and attached copies of job descriptions and employment service records of the supervisory employees, including samples of memoranda and notices they made which purportedly illustrated their exercise of management prerogatives. On 31 May 1991, PT&T submitted more job descriptions to bolster its contention.

On 11 June 1991, Acting Secretary of Labor and Employment Confesor denied PT&T's appeal for lack of merit. She did not rule on the additional evidence presented by PT&T; instead, she directed that the evidence should be scrutinized and considered during the exclusion-inclusion proceedings where the employees who should be part of the bargaining unit would be determined. On 15 August 1991, Undersecretary of Labor and Employment Bienvenido E. Laguesma denied reconsideration of the resolution dismissing the appeal. PT&T then filed the instant petition for certiorari and mandamus, alleging that public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in failing to rule on the additional evidence, which would have buttressed its contention that there were no supervisory employees in its employ and would have barred the holding of a certification election.

PT&T also alleged that the UNION was affiliated with the same national federation representing its rank-and-file employees and, invoking Atlas Lithographic Services, Inc. vs. Laguesma, sought the UNION's disqualification. The UNION denied affiliation with the rank-and-file employees' federation, the Associated Labor Union or ALU, and clarified that it was affiliated with the Associated Professional, Supervisory Office, Technical Employees Union or APSOTEU, a separate and distinct national federation. The Med-Arbiter, whose order was sustained, noted that it was incredible that only rank-and-file and managerial employees were the personnel of PT&T, considering the line of service it offers to the public and the fact that it employed 2,500 employees, more or less, all over the country.

• Managerial Functions: PT&T moved to dismiss the petition for certification election on the ground that the UNION members were performing managerial functions and thus were not merely supervisory employees.
• Existing Certified Bargaining Unit: PT&T alleged that a certified bargaining unit already existed among its rank-and-file employees, which barred the filing of the petition.
• Function Determinative: PT&T manifested in its reply that it is the function of an employee which determines whether the employee is managerial or supervisory.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: PT&T anchored its petition on the ground that public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in failing to rule on additional evidence submitted by petitioner, which would have buttressed its contention that there were no supervisory employees in its employ and, consequently, would have barred the holding of a certification election.
• Disqualification of UNION: PT&T alleged that respondent UNION was affiliated with the same national federation representing its rank-and-file employees and, invoking Atlas Lithographic Services, Inc. vs. Laguesma, sought the disqualification of respondent UNION.

• Supervisory Employees May Form Own Organization: Respondent UNION opposed the motion to dismiss, contending that under the Labor Code supervisory employees are not eligible to join the labor organization of the rank-and-file employees although they may form their own.
• No Affiliation with Rank-and-File Federation: Respondent denied that it was affiliated with the same national federation of the rank-and-file employees union, the Associated Labor Union (ALU); it clarified that the PT&T Supervisory Employees Union is affiliated with the Associated Professional, Supervisory Office, Technical Employees Union (APSOTEU), a separate and distinct national federation from ALU.

• Certification Election in Unorganized Establishment: Whether a petition for certification election filed by supervisory employees of an unorganized establishment — one without a certified bargaining agent — may be dismissed on the ground that these employees are actually performing managerial functions.
• Employer's Legal Personality: Whether PT&T, as employer, has legal personality to file a motion to dismiss the petition for certification election on the ground that its supervisory employees are in reality managerial employees.
• Exclusion-Inclusion Proceedings: Whether the additional evidence submitted by PT&T on the alleged managerial functions of its supervisory employees should have been ruled upon before the certification election, or instead considered in exclusion-inclusion proceedings.
• Disqualification of UNION: Whether respondent UNION should be disqualified because it is allegedly affiliated with the same national federation representing PT&T's rank-and-file employees.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in denying PT&T's appeal and reconsideration and in ordering the certification election despite the additional evidence.

• Certification Election in Unorganized Establishment: No. The petition cannot be dismissed. Art. 257 of the Labor Code mandates that in an establishment with no certified bargaining agent, a certification election shall automatically be conducted upon petition by a legitimate labor organization; PT&T was unorganized as to its supervisory employees.
• Employer's Legal Personality: No. An employer has no standing to question a certification election, which is the sole concern of the workers; the exception under Art. 258, where the employer itself files the petition after being requested to bargain collectively, did not apply.
• Exclusion-Inclusion Proceedings: No. The additional evidence did not have to be resolved before the election; it was properly directed to be scrutinized in exclusion-inclusion proceedings, which determine who may vote and be part of the bargaining unit.
• Disqualification of UNION: No. Respondent denied affiliation with ALU and clarified that it was affiliated with APSOTEU, a separate and distinct national federation from ALU.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: No. The Med-Arbiter and public respondent committed no grave abuse of discretion; the holding of a certification election in an unorganized establishment is mandatory and must immediately be ordered upon petition by a legitimate labor organization.

• Certification Election in Unorganized Establishment: Art. 257 provides: "In any establishment where there is no certified bargaining agent, a certification election shall automatically be conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate labor organization." The supervisory employees of PT&T did not yet have a certified bargaining agent when UNION, a legitimate labor organization duly registered with the Department of Labor and Employment, filed the petition. Since no certified bargaining agent represented the supervisory employees, PT&T may be deemed an unorganized establishment within the purview of Art. 257. The fact that PT&T's rank-and-file employees were already represented by a certified bargaining agent did not make PT&T an organized establishment vis-a-vis the supervisory employees, because supervisory employees are not eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees. Consequently, the Med-Arbiter, as sustained by public respondent, committed no grave abuse of discretion in granting the petition. Sec. 6, Rule V, Book V, of the Implementing Rules and Regulations makes it mandatory for the Med-Arbiter to order the holding of a certification election.
• Employer's Legal Personality: PT&T did not possess legal personality to file a motion to dismiss the petition for certification election even if based on the ground that its supervisory employees were in reality managerial employees. It is well-settled that an employer has no standing to question a certification election since this is the sole concern of the workers. The only exception is where the employer has to file the petition for certification election itself pursuant to Art. 258 because it was requested to bargain collectively. No such exception applied. The choice of a collective bargaining agent is purely the internal affair of labor. PT&T should have questioned the inclusion of any disqualified employee during exclusion-inclusion proceedings before the representation officer.
• Exclusion-Inclusion Proceedings: The purpose of exclusion-inclusion proceedings is to determine who among the employees are entitled to vote and be part of the bargaining unit sought to be certified. Acting Secretary Confesor therefore did not abuse her discretion when she opted not to act upon the additional evidence submitted by PT&T. The holding of a certification election in an unorganized establishment is mandatory and must immediately be ordered upon petition by a legitimate labor organization. At any rate, the additional evidence failed to sufficiently show that the supervisory employees sought to be included were in fact performing managerial functions. While these supervisory employees exercised independent judgment which is not routinary or clerical in nature, their authority was merely recommendatory in character; in all instances, they were still accountable for their actions to a superior officer, their respective superintendents. The Solicitor General noted that the power of said supervisors in matters relating to the exercise of prerogatives for or against rank-and-file employees was not absolute but merely recommendatory, as their reports recommending or imposing disciplinary action always bore the concurrence of one or two superiors, and the job descriptions stated that these supervisors directly reported to a superior and were accountable to the latter. The Med-Arbiter also noted that it was incredible that only rank-and-file and managerial employees were the personnel of respondent firm, considering the line of service it offers to the public and the fact that it employed 2,500 employees, more or less, all over the country.
• Disqualification of UNION: PT&T alleged that respondent UNION was affiliated with the same national federation representing its rank-and-file employees and, invoking Atlas Lithographic Services, Inc. vs. Laguesma, sought its disqualification. Respondent denied it was affiliated with the same national federation of the rank-and-file employees union, the Associated Labor Union or ALU. It clarified that the PT&T Supervisory Employees Union is affiliated with the Associated Professional, Supervisory Office, Technical Employees Union or APSOTEU, which is a separate and distinct national federation from ALU. Thus, the factual premise for disqualification was not established.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Because Art. 257 and Sec. 6, Rule V, Book V, of the Implementing Rules and Regulations make the certification election mandatory in an unorganized establishment, the Acting Secretary did not abuse her discretion in denying the appeal and in directing that the additional evidence be considered in exclusion-inclusion proceedings. The petition for certiorari and mandamus was devoid of merit.

• Certification Election in an Unorganized Establishment — Under Art. 257 of the Labor Code, in any establishment where there is no certified bargaining agent, a certification election shall automatically be conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate labor organization. The Court applied this to hold that PT&T was an unorganized establishment with respect to its supervisory employees because no certified bargaining agent represented them, even though its rank-and-file employees already had one.
• Separate Labor Organization for Supervisory Employees — 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. The Court used this to explain that a certified bargaining agent for rank-and-file employees does not make the establishment organized as to supervisory employees.
• Employer Lacks Standing to Question Certification Election — An employer has no standing to question a certification election because the choice of a collective bargaining agent is the sole concern of the workers. The only exception is where the employer itself files the petition under Art. 258 after being requested to bargain collectively. The Court applied this to rule that PT&T's motion to dismiss was improper.
• Exclusion-Inclusion Proceedings as Proper Remedy — Exclusion-inclusion proceedings determine who among the employees are entitled to vote and be part of the bargaining unit sought to be certified. The Court held that any objection that employees are disqualified, including on the ground that they are managerial, should be raised there, not as a ground to dismiss the certification election petition.
• Function Determines Managerial or Supervisory Status — The function of an employee is determinative of whether the employee is managerial or supervisory. The Court found that the additional evidence failed to show managerial functions because the supervisors' authority was merely recommendatory and they remained accountable to their superintendents.

• "In any establishment where there is no certified bargaining agent, a certification election shall automatically be conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate labor organization." — This is the statutory basis under Art. 257 of the Labor Code for the mandatory certification election in an unorganized establishment, and it is the core ratio for upholding the election among PT&T's supervisory employees.
• "It is well-settled that an employer has no standing to question a certification election since this is the sole concern of the workers." — This passage states the controlling rule on the employer's lack of legal personality to oppose the certification election, subject only to the exception under Art. 258.
• "What PT&T should have done was to question the inclusion of any disqualified employee in the certification election during the exclusion-inclusion proceedings before the representation officer." — This passage identifies the proper procedural remedy for an employer's objection that certain employees are managerial and therefore disqualified from the bargaining unit.
• "On the contrary, while these supervisory employees did excercise independent judgment which is not routinary or clerical in nature, their authority was merely recommendatory in character." — This passage explains why the additional evidence failed to establish that the employees were managerial rather than supervisory, a key factual underpinning of the decision.

• California Manufacturing Corporation vs. Laguesma, G.R. No. 97020, 8 June 1992, 209 SCRA 606 — Cited for the rule that an employer has no standing to question a certification election.
• Asian Design and Manufacturing Corporation vs. Calleja, G.R. No. 77415, 29 June 1989, 174 SCRA 477 — Cited for the same proposition that a certification election is the sole concern of the workers.
• Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services vs. Trajano, G.R. No. 61153, 17 January 1983, 120 SCRA 64 — Cited for the rule that the choice of a collective bargaining agent is purely the internal affair of labor.
• Atlas Lithographic Services, Inc. vs. Laguesma, G.R. No. 96566, 6 January 1992, 205 SCRA 12 — Invoked by PT&T in support of its bid to disqualify respondent UNION; the Court noted respondent's denial of affiliation with ALU and its clarification that it was affiliated with APSOTEU, a separate and distinct federation.

• Art. 257, Labor Code — Petitions in unorganized establishments. In any establishment where there is no certified bargaining agent, a certification election shall automatically be conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate labor organization. Applied to deem PT&T unorganized as to supervisory employees and to require the election.
• Art. 245, Labor Code — 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. Applied to hold that the rank-and-file certified bargaining agent did not make PT&T organized vis-a-vis supervisory employees.
• Sec. 6, Rule V, Book V, Implementing Rules and Regulations — Procedure. Upon receipt of a petition, the Regional Director shall assign the case to a Med-Arbiter; the Med-Arbiter shall have twenty working days from submission to dismiss or grant the petition. In a petition filed by a legitimate organization involving an unorganized establishment, the Med-Arbiter shall immediately order the conduct of a certification election. Applied to make the order mandatory.
• Art. 258, Labor Code — When an employer may file petition. When requested to bargain collectively, an employer may petition the Bureau for an election. If there is no existing certified collective bargaining agreement in the unit, the Bureau shall, after hearing, order a certification election. Applied as the only exception to the employer's lack of standing; the exception was not present.

• Justice Cruz
• Justice Griño-Aquino
• Justice Quiason

No separate concurring opinions are recounted in the text.