Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union vs. Standard Chartered Bank

Factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies, such as the Secretary of Labor, when supported by substantial evidence, are entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal, particularly where the findings of the labor official and the appellate court coincide. A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court shall raise only questions of law, and the Court will not evaluate the sufficiency of evidence anew.

Petitioner Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union (SCBEU-NUBE) is the rank-and-file employees' union of respondent Standard Chartered Bank. The parties had an existing collective bargaining relationship, with their 1998-2000 CBA having expired. The dispute arose in the context of negotiating a new CBA, with the Secretary of Labor and Employment assuming jurisdiction over the labor dispute after a deadlock in negotiations and the filing of a Notice of Strike.

Petitioner Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union (SCBEU-NUBE) and respondent Standard Chartered Bank began negotiating for a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) in May 2000, as their 1998-2000 CBA had already expired. Due to a deadlock in the negotiations, petitioner filed a Notice of Strike, prompting the Secretary of Labor and Employment to assume jurisdiction over the labor dispute.

On May 31, 2001, Secretary Patricia A. Sto. Tomas of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) issued an Order directing the parties to execute their CBA effective April 1, 2001 until March 30, 2003, incorporating the dispositions and agreements reached during negotiations. The Order dismissed the charge of unfair labor practice for bargaining in bad faith and the claim for damages relating thereto for lack of merit, and dismissed the charge of unfair labor practice for gross violation of the economic provisions of the CBA for want of jurisdiction. Both petitioner and the Bank filed motions for reconsideration, which were denied by the Secretary per Order dated August 30, 2001.

The CBA provisions in dispute concerned the exclusion of certain employees from the appropriate bargaining unit and the adjustment of remuneration for employees serving in an acting capacity. In their proposal, petitioner sought the exclusion of only the following employees from the appropriate bargaining unit: all managers vested with the right to hire and fire employees, confidential employees, those with access to labor relations materials, Chief Cashiers, Assistant Cashiers, personnel of the Telex Department, and one Human Resources (HR) staff. The previous 1998-2000 CBA, however, excluded a broader list: all covenanted and assistant officers (now called National Officers); one confidential secretary of each of the Chief Executive, Philippine Branches, Deputy Chief Executive/Head, Corporate Banking Group, Head, Finance, Head, Human Resources, Manager, Cebu, and Manager, Iloilo; covenanted officers provided said positions shall be filled by new recruits; the Chief Cashiers and Assistant Cashiers in Manila, Cebu and Iloilo, and in any other branch the Bank may establish; personnel of the Telex Department; all security guards; probationary employees, without prejudice to Article 277(c) of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. 6715, casuals or emergency employees; and one HR staff.

The Secretary maintained the previous exclusions because petitioner failed to show that the employees sought to be removed from the list qualify for exclusion. With regard to remuneration of employees working in an acting capacity, petitioner took the position that additional pay should be given to an employee who has been serving in a temporary/acting capacity for one week. The Secretary rejected this proposal and instead allowed additional pay for those who had been working in such capacity for one month, agreeing with the Bank's position that a restrictive provision would curtail management's prerogative, while recognizing that employees should not be made to work in an acting capacity for long periods of time without adequate compensation. The CA affirmed the Secretary's disposition of the issues.

The resolution of the case was overtaken by the execution of the parties' 2003-2005 CBA, which would render the case moot and academic; nevertheless, the Court resolved the case because the likelihood that the same issues would come up in the parties' future CBA negotiations was not far-fetched, thus compelling its resolution, as courts will decide a question otherwise moot if it is capable of repetition yet evading review.

• Scope of Exclusions: Petitioner argued that the CA erred in deciding that there was no basis for revising the scope of exclusions from the appropriate bargaining unit under the CBA, insisting that the Chief Cashiers, Assistant Cashiers, personnel of the Telex Department, and HR staff are not confidential employees and should be included in the bargaining unit.
• Acting Capacity Remuneration: Petitioner argued that the CA erred in deciding that a one-month or less temporary occupation of a position (acting capacity) does not merit adjustment in remuneration, maintaining that additional pay should be given to an employee who has been serving in a temporary/acting capacity for one week.
• Evidentiary Support: Petitioner relied on jurisprudence to support its claims but failed to state the nature of the duties and functions of the employees sought to be excluded, and failed to controvert with evidence the findings of the Secretary and the CA.

• Management Prerogative: The Bank argued that a restrictive provision with respect to employees being placed in an acting capacity would curtail management's valid exercise of its prerogative.
• Exclusion Justification: The Bank maintained that the employees sought to be removed from the exclusion list were properly excluded, as petitioner failed to show that they are actually rank and file employees who are not managerial or confidential in status.

• Scope of Exclusions: Whether the employees sought to be excluded from the appropriate bargaining unit — Chief Cashiers, Assistant Cashiers, personnel of the Telex Department, and HR staff — are confidential employees who should be excluded.
• Acting Capacity Remuneration: Whether additional remuneration should be given to employees placed in an acting capacity for one week, rather than one month.
• Propriety of Rule 45 Petition: Whether the issues raised are questions of fact not proper in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

• Scope of Exclusions: No. Whether the employees sought to be excluded are confidential employees is a question of fact, not a proper issue in a petition for review under Rule 45, and petitioner failed to controvert with evidence the findings of the Secretary and the CA.
• Acting Capacity Remuneration: No. The Secretary's order that no employee should be temporarily placed in a position for more than one month without corresponding salary adjustment was upheld, as it properly balanced management prerogative against employee protection.
• Propriety of Rule 45 Petition: No. The petition raised only questions of fact, and the factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies, when supported by substantial evidence, are entitled to great respect.

• Scope of Exclusions: The Court noted that the disqualification of managerial and confidential employees from joining a bargaining unit for rank and file employees is well-entrenched in jurisprudence. While Article 245 of the Labor Code limits the ineligibility to join, form and assist any labor organization to managerial employees, jurisprudence has extended this prohibition to confidential employees — those who by reason of their positions or nature of work are required to assist or act in a fiduciary manner to managerial employees and hence are likewise privy to sensitive and highly confidential records. The Court cited National Association of Trade Unions (NATU) – Republic Planters Bank Supervisors Chapter vs. Torres declaring bank cashiers as confidential employees having control, custody and/or access to confidential matters such as the branch's cash position, statements of financial condition, vault combination, cash codes for telegraphic transfers, demand drafts and other negotiable instruments. It cited Golden Farms, Inc. vs. Ferrer-Calleja stating that confidential employees such as accounting personnel, radio and telegraph operators who have access to confidential information may become the source of undue advantage. It also cited Philips Industrial Development, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission designating personnel staff, in which human resources staff may be qualified, as confidential employees. However, petitioner failed to buttress its claim that the foregoing employees are not confidential employees — aside from its generalized arguments, and despite the Secretary's finding that there was no evidence to support it, petitioner still failed to substantiate its claim. Petitioner did not even bother to state the nature of the duties and functions of these employees, depriving the Court of any basis on which it may be concluded that they are indeed confidential employees. The CA aptly stated that while petitioner's proposed revision is in accordance with the law, this does not necessarily mean that the list of exclusions enumerated in the 1998-2000 CBA is contrary to law, as petitioner failed to show that the employees sought to be removed from the list of exclusions are actually rank and file employees who are not managerial or confidential in status. Absent any proof that Chief Cashiers and Assistant Cashiers, personnel of the Telex department and one HR Staff have mutuality of interest with the other rank and file employees, they are rightfully excluded from the appropriate bargaining unit. Petitioner cannot simply rely on jurisprudence without explaining how and why it should apply to this case; allegations must be supported by evidence.

• Acting Capacity Remuneration: The Court found no reason to disturb the conclusion of the Secretary and the CA that additional remuneration should be given to employees placed in an acting capacity for one month. The CA correctly stated that the Secretary's order is not in violation of the "equal pay for equal work" principle, considering that after one month, the employee performing the job in an acting capacity will be entitled to salary corresponding to such position. The Secretary took all the relevant evidence into account and weighed both parties' arguments extensively, concluding that a restrictive provision with respect to employees being placed in an acting capacity may curtail management's valid exercise of its prerogative, while recognizing that employees should not be made to perform work in an acting capacity for extended periods of time without being adequately compensated.

• Propriety of Rule 45 Petition: The Court reiterated the doctrine that the office of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court requires that it shall raise only questions of law. The factual findings by quasi-judicial agencies, such as the Department of Labor and Employment, when supported by substantial evidence, are entitled to great respect in view of their expertise in their respective fields. Judicial review of labor cases does not go so far as to evaluate the sufficiency of evidence on which the labor official's findings rest. It is not the Court's function to assess and evaluate all over again the evidence, testimonial and documentary, adduced by the parties to an appeal, particularly where the findings of both the trial court (here, the DOLE Secretary) and the appellate court on the matter coincide. The Rule limits that function of the Court to the review or revision of errors of law and not to a second analysis of the evidence. Absent any showing of whimsical or capricious exercise of judgment, and unless lack of any basis for the conclusions made by the appellate court be amply demonstrated, the Court may not disturb such factual findings.

• Confidential employees doctrine — While Article 245 of the Labor Code limits the ineligibility to join, form and assist any labor organization to managerial employees, jurisprudence has extended this prohibition to confidential employees — those who by reason of their positions or nature of work are required to assist or act in a fiduciary manner to managerial employees and hence are likewise privy to sensitive and highly confidential records. The Court applied this doctrine to uphold the exclusion of Chief Cashiers, Assistant Cashiers, Telex Department personnel, and HR staff from the bargaining unit, as petitioner failed to prove they were not confidential employees.

• Mootness — capable of repetition yet evading review — Courts will decide a question otherwise moot if it is capable of repetition yet evading review. The Court applied this doctrine to resolve the case despite its being overtaken by the execution of the parties' 2003-2005 CBA, because the likelihood that the same issues would come up in the parties' future CBA negotiations was not far-fetched.

• Scope of Rule 45 petition — A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court shall raise only questions of law. Factual findings by quasi-judicial agencies, such as the DOLE, when supported by substantial evidence, are entitled to great respect in view of their expertise in their respective fields. The Court applied this doctrine to decline review of the factual question of whether the excluded employees are confidential employees.

• "While We agree that petitioner's proposed revision is in accordance with the law, this does not necessarily mean that the list of exclusions enumerated in the 1998-2000 CBA is contrary to law. As found by public respondent, petitioner failed to show that the employees sought to be removed from the list of exclusions are actually rank and file employees who are not managerial or confidential in status and should, accordingly, be included in the appropriate bargaining unit. Absent any proof that Chief Cashiers and Assistant Cashiers, personnel of the Telex department and one (1) HR Staff have mutuality of interest with the other rank and file employees, then they are rightfully excluded from the appropriate bargaining unit." — This passage from the CA, quoted with approval by the Court, articulates the evidentiary burden on the party seeking to revise CBA exclusions and the standard for determining whether employees should be included in the bargaining unit.

• "The factual findings by quasi-judicial agencies, such as the Department of Labor and Employment, when supported by substantial evidence, are entitled to great respect in view of their expertise in their respective fields. Judicial review of labor cases does not go so far as to evaluate the sufficiency of evidence on which the labor official's findings rest." — This passage states the controlling doctrine on the scope of judicial review of labor cases, which formed the basis for the Court's denial of the petition.

• "The disqualification of managerial and confidential employees from joining a bargaining unit for rank and file employees is already well-entrenched in jurisprudence. While Article 245 of the Labor Code limits the ineligibility to join, form and assist any labor organization to managerial employees, jurisprudence has extended this prohibition to confidential employees or those who by reason of their positions or nature of work are required to assist or act in a fiduciary manner to managerial employees and hence, are likewise privy to sensitive and highly confidential records." — This passage defines the confidential employees doctrine and its jurisprudential basis, extending the statutory prohibition beyond managerial employees.

• National Association of Trade Unions (NATU) – Republic Planters Bank Supervisors Chapter vs. Torres, G.R. No. 93468, December 29, 1994, 239 SCRA 546 — Controlling precedent declaring bank cashiers as confidential employees having control, custody and/or access to confidential matters, e.g., the branch's cash position, statements of financial condition, vault combination, cash codes for telegraphic transfers, demand drafts and other negotiable instruments, pursuant to Sec. 1166.4 of the Central Bank Manual regarding joint custody, and therefore disqualified from joining or assisting a union.

• Golden Farms, Inc. vs. Ferrer-Calleja, G.R. No. 78755, July 19, 1989, 175 SCRA 471 — Cited for the proposition that confidential employees such as accounting personnel, radio and telegraph operators who have access to confidential information may become the source of undue advantage and may act as spies of either party to a collective bargaining agreement.

• Philips Industrial Development, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 88957, June 25, 1992, 210 SCRA 339 — Cited for the proposition that personnel staff, in which human resources staff may be qualified, are confidential employees because by the very nature of their functions, they assist and act in a confidential capacity to, or have access to confidential matters of, persons who exercise managerial functions in the field of labor relations.

• Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, Inc. vs. National Wages and Productivity Commission, G.R. No. 144322, February 6, 2007, 514 SCRA 346 — Cited for the doctrine that courts will decide a question otherwise moot if it is capable of repetition yet evading review.

• Kabankalan Catholic College vs. Kabankalan Catholic College Union-PACIWU-TUCP, G.R. No. 157320, June 28, 2005, 461 SCRA 481 — Cited for the proposition that whether employees are confidential employees is a question of fact not proper in a petition for review under Rule 45.

• Metrolab Industries, Inc. vs. Roldan-Confesor, 324 Phil. 416 (1996) — Cited for the extension of the prohibition on joining labor organizations to confidential employees.

• Telefunken Semiconductors Employees Union-FFW vs. Court of Appeals, 401 Phil. 776 (2000) — Cited for the doctrine on the scope of Rule 45 petitions and the great respect accorded to factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies.

• Article 245, Labor Code — Limits the ineligibility to join, form and assist any labor organization to managerial employees. The Court noted that jurisprudence has extended this prohibition to confidential employees.

• Article 277(c), Labor Code, as amended by R.A. 6715 — Referenced in the 1998-2000 CBA's exclusion of probationary employees, without prejudice to this provision.

• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Governs petitions for review on certiorari, requiring that only questions of law be raised. The Court applied this rule to decline review of the factual issue of whether the excluded employees are confidential employees.

• Sec. 1166.4, Central Bank Manual — Referenced in NATU vs. Torres regarding joint custody of confidential bank matters, supporting the classification of bank cashiers as confidential employees.

Ynares-Santiago (Chairperson), Chico-Nazario, Nachura, and Reyes, JJ., concurred.