Petitioner Vs Vs Respondent: Third Division
Petitioner Vs Vs Respondent: Third Division
DECISION
PERALTA , J : p
In G.R. No. 110399, entitled San Miguel Corporation Supervisors and Exempt
Union v. Laguesma , 1 the Court held that even if they handle con dential data regarding
technical and internal business operations, supervisory employees 3 and 4 and the
exempt employees of petitioner San Miguel Foods, Inc. (SMFI) are not to be considered
con dential employees, because the same do not pertain to labor relations, particularly,
negotiation and settlement of grievances. Consequently, they were allowed to form an
appropriate bargaining unit for the purpose of collective bargaining. The Court also
declared that the employees belonging to the three different plants of San Miguel
Corporation Magnolia Poultry Products Plants in Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis,
having "community or mutuality of interests," constitute a single bargaining unit. They
perform work of the same nature, receive the same wages and compensation, and
most importantly, share a common stake in concerted activities. It was immaterial that
the three plants have different locations as they did not impede the operations of a
single bargaining representative. 2
Pursuant to the Court's decision in G.R. No. 110399, the Department of Labor and
Employment-National Capital Region (DOLE-NCR) conducted pre-election conferences.
3 However, there was a discrepancy in the list of eligible voters, i.e., petitioner
submitted a list of 23 employees for the San Fernando plant and 33 for the Cabuyao
plant, while respondent listed 60 and 82, respectively. 4
On August 31, 1998, Med-Arbiter Agatha Ann L. Daquigan issued an Order 5
directing Election O cer Cynthia Tolentino to proceed with the conduct of certi cation
election in accordance with Section 2, Rule XII of Department Order No. 9.
On September 30, 1998, a certi cation election was conducted and it yielded the
following results, 6 thus:
Cabuyao San Fernando Total
Plant Plant
Yes 23 23 46
No 0 0 0
Spoiled 2 0 2
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
Segregated 41 35 76
——— ——— ———
Total Votes Cast 66 58 124
=== === ===
On the date of the election, September 30, 1998, petitioner led the Omnibus
Objections and Challenge to Voters, 7 questioning the eligibility to vote by some of its
employees on the grounds that some employees do not belong to the bargaining unit
which respondent seeks to represent or that there is no existence of employer-
employee relationship with petitioner. Speci cally, it argued that certain employees
should not be allowed to vote as they are: (1) con dential employees; (2) employees
assigned to the live chicken operations, which are not covered by the bargaining unit;
(3) employees whose job grade is level 4, but are performing managerial work and
scheduled to be promoted; (4) employees who belong to the Barrio Ugong plant; (5)
non-SMFI employees; and (6) employees who are members of other unions.
On October 21, 1998, the Med-Arbiter issued an Order directing respondent to
submit proof showing that the employees in the submitted list are covered by the
original petition for certi cation election and belong to the bargaining unit it seeks to
represent and, likewise, directing petitioner to substantiate the allegations contained in
its Omnibus Objections and Challenge to Voters. 8
In compliance thereto, respondent averred that (1) the bargaining unit
contemplated in the original petition is the Poultry Division of San Miguel Corporation,
now known as San Miguel Foods, Inc.; (2) it covered the operations in Calamba, Laguna,
Cavite, and Batangas and its home base is either in Cabuyao, Laguna or San Fernando,
Pampanga; and (3) it submitted individual and separate declarations of the employees
whose votes were challenged in the election. 9 SITCEA
Adding the results to the number of votes canvassed during the September 30,
1998 certi cation election, the nal tally showed that: number of eligible voters — 149;
number of valid votes cast — 121; number of spoiled ballots — 3; total number of votes
cast — 124, with 118 (i.e., 46 + 72 = 118) "Yes" votes and 3 "No" votes. 1 0
The Med-Arbiter issued the Resolution 1 1 dated February 17, 1999 directing the
parties to appear before the Election O cer of the Labor Relations Division on March 9,
1999, 10:00 a.m., for the opening of the segregated ballots. Thereafter, on April 12,
1999, the segregated ballots were opened, showing that out of the 76 segregated
votes, 72 were cast for "Yes" and 3 for "No," with one "spoiled" ballot. 1 2
Based on the results, the Med-Arbiter issued the Order 1 3 dated April 13, 1999,
stating that since the "Yes" vote received 97% of the valid votes cast, respondent is
certi ed to be the exclusive bargaining agent of the supervisors and exempt employees
of petitioner's Magnolia Poultry Products Plants in Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis.
On appeal, the then Acting DOLE Undersecretary, in the Resolution 1 4 dated July
30, 1999, in OS-A-2-70-91 (NCR-OD-M-9010-017), a rmed the Order dated April 13,
1999, with modi cation that George C. Matias, Alma Maria M. Lozano, Joannabel T.
Delos Reyes, and Marilyn G. Pajaron be excluded from the bargaining unit which
respondent seeks to represent. She opined that the challenged voters should be
excluded from the bargaining unit, because Matias and Lozano are members of
Magnolia Poultry Processing Plants Monthly Employees Union, while Delos Reyes and
Pajaron are employees of San Miguel Corporation, which is a separate and distinct
entity from petitioner.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
Petitioner's Partial Motion for Reconsideration 1 5 dated August 14, 1999 was
denied by the then Acting DOLE Undersecretary in the Order 1 6 dated August 27, 1999.
In the Decision 1 7 dated April 28, 2000, in CA-G.R. SP No. 55510, entitled San
Miguel Foods, Inc. v. The Honorable O ce of the Secretary of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Relations, and San Miguel Corporation Supervisors and Exempt Union, the Court of
Appeals (CA) a rmed with modi cation the Resolution dated July 30, 1999 of the
DOLE Undersecretary, stating that those holding the positions of Human Resource
Assistant and Personnel Assistant are excluded from the bargaining unit.
Petitioner's Motion for Partial Reconsideration 1 8 dated May 23, 2000 was denied
by the CA in the Resolution 1 9 dated November 28, 2000.
Hence, petitioner filed this present petition raising the following issues:
I.
II.
III.
Petitioner contends that with the Court's ruling in G.R. No. 110399 2 0 identifying
the speci c employees who can participate in the certi cation election, i.e., the
supervisors (levels 1 to 4) and exempt employees of San Miguel Poultry Products
Plants in Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis, the CA erred in expanding the scope of the
bargaining unit so as to include employees who do not belong to or who are not based
in its Cabuyao or San Fernando plants. It also alleges that the employees of the
Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis plants of petitioner's predecessor, San Miguel
Corporation, as stated in G.R. No. 110399, were engaged in "dressed" chicken
processing, i.e., handling and packaging of chicken meat, while the new bargaining unit,
as de ned by the CA in the present case, includes employees engaged in "live" chicken
operations, i.e., those who breed chicks and grow chickens.
Respondent counters that petitioner's proposed exclusion of certain employees
from the bargaining unit was a rehashed issue which was already settled in G.R. No.
110399. It maintains that the issue of union membership coverage should no longer be
raised as a certi cation election already took place on September 30, 1998, wherein
respondent won with 97% votes.
Petitioner's contentions are erroneous. In G.R. No. 110399, the Court explained
that the employees of San Miguel Corporation Magnolia Poultry Products Plants of
Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis constitute a single bargaining unit, which is not
contrary to the one-company, one-union policy. An appropriate bargaining unit is
de ned as a group of employees of a given employer, comprised of all or less than all
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
of the entire body of employees, which the collective interest of all the employees,
consistent with equity to the employer, indicate to be best suited to serve the
reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of
the law. 2 1 cHDEaC
The proceedings for certi cation election are quasi-judicial in nature and,
therefore, decisions rendered in such proceedings can attain nality. 3 6 Applying the
doctrine of res judicata, the issue in the present case pertaining to the coverage of the
employees who would constitute the bargaining unit is now a foregone conclusion.
It bears stressing that a certi cation election is the sole concern of the workers;
hence, an employer lacks the personality to dispute the same. The general rule is that
an employer has no standing to question the process of certi cation election, since this
is the sole concern of the workers. 3 7 Law and policy demand that employers take a
strict, hands-off stance in certi cation elections. The bargaining representative of
employees should be chosen free from any extraneous in uence of management. A
labor bargaining representative, to be effective, must owe its loyalty to the employees
alone and to no other. 3 8 The only exception is where the employer itself has to le the
petition pursuant to Article 258 3 9 of the Labor Code because of a request to bargain
collectively. 4 0
With the foregoing disquisition, the Court writes nis to the issues raised so as
to forestall future suits of similar nature.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
WHEREFORE , the petition is DENIED . The Decision dated April 28, 2000 and
Resolution dated November 28, 2000 of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 55510,
which a rmed with modi cation the Resolutions dated July 30, 1999 and August 27,
1999 of the Secretary of Labor, are AFFIRMED .
SO ORDERED .
Carpio, * Velasco, Jr., Abad and Sereno, ** JJ., concur.
Footnotes
*Designated as an additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza, per
Special Order No. 1056a dated July 27, 2011.
**Designated as an additional member, per Special Order No. 1028 dated June 21, 2011.
1.343 Phil. 143 (1997).
2.Id. at 151, 153-154.
3.Per petitioner's Reply to Comment dated January 6, 2004, its Otis Plant is no longer
operational.
4.See CA Decision dated April 28, 2000, p. 5; rollo, p. 15.
16.Rollo, p. 87.
17.Penned by Associate Justice Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos, with Associate Justices Corona
Ibay-Somera and Elvi John S. Asuncion, concurring; id. at 11-26.
18.CA rollo, pp. 437-449.
19.Penned by Associate Justice Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos, with Associate Justices Elvi John
S. Asuncion and Eliezer R. Delos Santos, concurring, rollo, pp. 28-29.
20.San Miguel Corporation Supervisors and Exempt Employees Union v. Laguesma, supra note
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
1.
21.Id. at 153, citing University of the Philippines v. Calleja-Ferrer, 211 SCRA 464 (1992), which
cited Rothenberg on Labor Relations, p. 482.
24.Id.
25.See note 3.
26.Sugbuanon 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).
27.Tunay 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.
28.Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 103300, August 10,
1999, 312 SCRA 104, 116.
29.Golden Farms, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja, 256 Phil. 903, 909 (1989), cited in Standard Chartered
Bank Employees Union (SCBEU-NUBE) v. Standard Chartered Bank, G.R. No. 161933,
April 22, 2008, 552 SCRA 284, 291-292 and Philips Industrial Development, Inc. v. NLRC,
G.R. No. 88957, June 25, 1992, 210 SCRA 339, 348.
30.Art. 245. 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
the collective bargaining unit of the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form
separate collective bargaining units and/or legitimate labor organizations of their own.
The rank-and-file union and the supervisor's union operating within the supervisors'
union operating within the same establishment may join the same federation or national
union.
31.Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Asia Brewery v. Asia Brewery, Inc., supra note 27,
at 381, citing Metrolab Industries, Inc. v. Roldan-Confesor, G.R. No. 108855, February 28,
1996, 254 SCRA 182, 197.
32.Id. at 381-382, citing Bulletin Publishing Corporation v. Sanchez, 228 Phil. 600, 608-609
(1986).
33.Id. at 382, citing Golden Farms, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja, supra note 29.
34.Human Resource Assistant : To support the human resources objectives of the MPPP,
MPF this position shall provide coordination, advice, information and assistance to the
plant personnel manager in the following duties:
MANPOWER PLANNING (PROCESS[ING] AND LIVE)
1.1. Assists and participates in the studies on manning and manpower forecasts needed
to meet the current and future personnel requirements of processing, live operations.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
1.2. Checks plans for the implementation of staff movements such as transfers,
promotions and separations of both processing [and] live operations.
1.3 Coordinates with all department[s] for the consolidation of manpower cost budget
and its complement.
1.4 Provides updated organization to the plant management.
COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION (PROCESSING AND LIVE)
2.1 Initially evaluates and classifies all positions.
2.2 Prepares salary analyses and recommendations for consultation with compensation
dept.
2.3 Develops/updates compensation packages for specific personnel when the need
arises.
All certification election cases shall be decided within twenty (20) days.
The Bureau shall conduct a certification election within twenty (20) days in accordance
with the rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Labor.
40.National Association of Trade Unions — Republic Planters Bank Supervisors Chapter v.
Torres, supra note 37.
n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the o cial copy. Formerly “37. Barbizon
Philippines, Inc. v. Nagkakaisang Supervisor ng Barbizon Philippines, Inc. — 330 Phil.
472, 493 (1996)”