LAGUNA COLLEGE, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, LAGUNA COLLEGE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION (LACTA)-CCLU, AND THE DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, RESPONDENTS.

This case ‘started with a
petition for certification election filed by the, Laguna College, also
petitioner before us, in the Court of Industrial Relations on October 20, 1967
(Case No. 2037-MC).  The purpose was
“to determine whether the Laguna College Teachers Association (LACTA) or
any other labor organization is the true and voluntary choice of the majority
of the teachers working in petitioner’s establishment the sole and exclusive
bargaining representative.”

LACTA intervened and filed an answer on November 18, 1967, praying that the petition
for, certification election be dismissed and that it be directly certified as
sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all the teachers,
excluding “those occupying supervisory and confidential positions (as)
defined and settled by jurisprudence.”

While the certification
proceeding was pending before the Industrial Court,
specifically on January 2, 1968, LACTA strike, but the settled a return-to-work agreement executed by union
and manage­ment on January 4, 1968.  One
of the stipulations in the said agreement is as follows: “That, except on questions of
law, both parties hereby waive the right to appeal any decision or order that
may be rendered by the Trial Court of the Court of Industrial Relations (not
Court en banc) in case 2037-MC pending is said Court.”

On March 11, 1968 the trial Judge, Hon. Ansberto P.
Paredes; issued an order of which the dispositive part read as follows:

“WHEREFORE, the
appropriate collective bargaining unit is hereby declared to be the
employer unit comprising all the teachers
of the Laguna College of San Pablo City; the certi­fication election
prayed for is hereby granted; Trinidad Alvera,
Palermo Bañagale, Severo Belarmino, Eden Brion, Teofilo Desamero, Senen Faylon, Natividad
Evangelista, Juan B. Hernandez, Ricardo
Maala, Vicente
Maneso, Wenceslao Retizos, and Julio Tunguhan,
being supervisors and/or holding confidential positions, are excluded from the
bargain­ing unit and therefore ineligible to vote; Moises
Belen; Eduardo Lainez;
Gregorio Briones, Olimpio
Cortez, Sr., Adventor Neri
Guillermo Pisigan, Marcelo Almanzor
and Pantaleon Torres are hereby declared
rank-and-file employees; Yolanda Almeda, Gertrudis Evangelista and Marlita
Evang­elista are hereby declared within the employer unit and they, together
with the teachers whose names are listed in Annex “A” herewith
attached, are hereby declared eligible to vote; and the Depart­ment of Labor or
its authorized representative or
representatives are hereby re­quested to conduct the certification elec­tion
with the choice limited to Laguna College Teachers Association; LACTA for short, c/o Atty. Oliver B. Gesmundo, 303 Free
Press Bldg., Manila, and NO UNION, and
thereafter, to submit the results there­of for further
disposition by the Court.”

Petitioner thereafter
elevated the case to the court en banc on motion for reconsideration insofar as
the decision (1) authorized the inclusion of eight teachers as rank and file employees and
therefore declared them eligible to vote in the certification election and (2)
authorized (LACTA only one (LACTA)
instead of two bargaining units to be voted upon.  LACTA interposed its opposition to the
motion.  In the meantime the Bureau of Labor Relations scheduled the election for March
26, 1968, but upon
petitioner’s motion respondent Court suspended it until further orders.  The motion for reconsideration was denied by
the Court en banc on April 5, 1968, and
the Director of Labor Relations thereupon reset the election for April 22.

On April 20, 1968
petitioner came to this Court on a petition for review of the orders of March
11 and April 5, seeking a modification thereof so that employees “hold­ing
supervisory and/or confidential positions…(may) be
excluded from whatever appropriate bargaining unit or may be finally
determined,” and praying that a restraining order be issued by this Court
to stop respondents from implementing the orders appealed from.  This Court, however, while it gave due course
to the petition, did not issue the restraining order prayed for.

On April 26, 1968 respondent LACTA filed a motion to dismiss the
petition on two grounds, namely: “(1) appeal is (a) dilatory and not
conducive to industrial Peace; ‘b) has become moot and academic, with
petitioner having actively participated in the election and is there­fore
already in estoppel; and (c) raises flimsy and unsubs­tantial
issues; and (2) the petition raises questions. of fact
(and), aside from the agreement between petitioner and LACTA that they would
not appeal the order of the trial Court of the Court of Industrial Relations;
this Honorable Court, therefore, has no jurisdiction over the present appeal
(sic).” A supplemental motion to dismiss followed, after which peti­tioner submitted its comment.

The main issue raised in the petition refers to the clasification
of the following employees in the rank-and-file category:  Marcelo Almanzor,
Eduardo R. Lainez, Adventor
C. Neri, Moises Belen,
Gregorio Briones, Olimpio
Cortez, Sr., Guillermo Pisigan and Pantaleon Torres. 
Petitioner claims that these eight are supervisors and therefore should not been considered as eligible
to vote in the election of
appropriate bargaining unit.

The issue, however, is
mainly one of fact. In his resolution thereof the trial Judge analyzed in
detail the evidence before it, both oral and documentary.  The analysis shows that there is
substantial support for the conclusion reached, and the substantial-evidence
rule applicable to cases like the present precludes our reviewing the matter on
appeal.  The trial Judge, in his order of March 11, 1968, found as follows:

“On the issue as to whether the eight named teachers are
supervisors or not, there is, in the first place, no evidence adduced to show that Almanzor is a supervisor.  With respect to Pisigan
the only evidence offered to show that he is a supervisor is Exhibit “R” which is nothing
more than his designation as “x x x Moderator and/or Adviser o the Sampaloc Lake
News, School Organ of the Students of the Laguna Col­lege, San Pablo City“. From this document, it is shown that the principal functions of Pisigan are to select, by competitive examinations, the students who will ‘occupy the positions
of editor-in-chief, associate editor, news-in-charge, feature-in-charge,
literary-in-charge; and to tone down, or totally disapprove publication of
articles which, in his opinion, are derogatory to the good name of any
person or institution.  These functions
and the others enumerated in Exhibit “R” are, not within the purview
of the definition of supervisor as provided in Section 2(k) of R.A. 875.  So is the case of Pantaleon
Torres.  Being a consultant of the
College Organ, the Sampaloc Lake News, and have (sic) duties as enumerated Exhibit
“S”, do not make him a supervisor. 
This is
specially’ true when his testimony was not denied or rebutted,
disclosing that h is not an area supervisor; that there are no teachers under
him (p. 153, t.s.n. December 14, 1967); and that he
does not have the power to hire, fire, lay-off, discharge, suspend, transfer, discipline
(p. 151, t.s.n., December 14, 1967), or adjust the
grievances of, any teacher of the Laguna College (p. 152, t.s.n.„ December 14, 1967). The case of Belen Briones, Cortez, Sr., Lainez and Neri are no different. Although they are area supervisors,
they do not exercise any of the attributes or functions of a supervisor as defined
in Section 2(k) of R.A. 875. To better understand their functions, it is best to know what is an
area supervisor.  The word
“area” in the designation refers to a particular sub­ject, like
English, Mathematics and Phy­sics, Filipino, General Science, Biology and
Chemistry, and Social Science-History and Economics.  It is a fact that not one of these area
supervisors has the power to hire or fire, lay-off, suspend, discharge or
discipline the teachers under them or adjust their grievances. The power to
rate the efficiency of the teachers under them is even subject to review or
revision by the principal, Mr. Wenceslao Retizos (pp. 30 to 40, t.s.n., December
14, 1967).  As a matter of fact, their functions are but
recommendatory (p. 48, t.s.n. December 14,
1967).  Thus, the assistant principal and general super­visor admitted that
the recommendations of the area supervisors, are subject
to evaluation, review and final approval by the principal, as “x x x most recommendations of area
supervisors are considered with a grain of salt.” (pp. 17 to 18, t.s.n., December 27, 1967.) It
is established by the evidence that
even. as the efficiency ratings given by
Lainez, an area supervisor,
is (sic) based on his own observations of the teachers under him, he was
prevailed upon by the principal to
change them (p. 65, t.s.n., December 14, 1967), which
he did, and that his remarks and observations of some of the teachers under him
made in Exhibit “G” were deleted
in the copy furnished the Bureau of Private Education (pp. 82 to 84, t.s.n.,
December 14, 1967). In the case of area supervisor Neri, as was admitted by
the as­sistant
principal and general supervisor, his recommendations, indeed, are
considered with a grain of salt. Neri’s testimony ‘is
not denied that when he recommended a teacher’ to teach biology, his
recommendation was re­jected (p. 108, t.s.n.,
December 14, 1967); and when he
assigned a teacher to teach Science, without so much as notifying him, the
teacher was given Arithmetic (p. 109, t.s.n.,
December 14, 1967). The prepara­tion of program of supervision by area
supervisors is, likewise, not indicative that they are supervisors, for, as
testified to by Lainez, which testimony is not
rebutted, it is nothing more than the
enumerations of activities in the area, many of them merely routinary,
as for instance, the checking of the formal themes, notebooks, survey of
textbooks, and regulating the number of students in a class (p. 52, t.s.n., December 14, 1967). For all the foregoing reasons,
it is believed that Lainez, Belen, Neri, Briones, Cortez, Sr.,
Torres, Pisigan and Almanzor
are not super­visors.”

What is more, in the
return-to-work agreement entered into
by the parties on January 4, 1968, to settle the strike declared
by LACTA on January 2, 1968, they both waived the right to appeal, except on
questions of law, from any decision
or order that might be tendered by the trial Court in the case then pending, No. 2037-MC. The
question of whether the eight employees
aforementioned were supervisors
or belonged to the rank and file was one of fact and consequently was covered
by the waiver.

The second issue raised
in the instant petition concerns the declaration in the order of March
11, 1968 that
only one bargaining unit should represent all the teachers employed in the Laguna
College.  Petitioner insists that there should be two
units, one for college professors and another for high school teachers.  This is a matter that is address to the sound discretion of respondent Court, upon its
own consideration of all the
pertinent circumstances; and unless such ‘discretion has been gravely abused
there is no justification to rule otherwise. 
The following rationale of the courts decision appears to be well-advised, and
the allegations in the
petition do not make out a sufficient case for the review thereof.

“On the appropriate bargaining unit, petitioner, changing its
original stand, proposed two separate units, namely, college unit’ composed of
the professors and instructors in the College, and high school unit com­prising
the high school teaches. On the other hand, LACTA proposed only one unit the
employer unit composing ‘ of all the teachers in the entire Laguna
College. From the evidence adduced,
it is believed that the factors in favor of employer unit far outweigh the
reasons for the establishment of two separate bargaining units as proposed by petitioner.  It is not denied that college teachers are
governed by rules and regulations of the bureau
of Private Education, which are different from the rules and regulations
for high school teachers; that the high school ‘department of petitioner was organized at a different time from the college department; that the
set-up in the two depart­ments are different; and that the high school
teachers are paid per period or ‘subject, while the College teachers are paid
on the hourly basis.  But it is also not
denied that these two departments are under the control of only one
board of trustees; that they
are housed in one and the same build­ing (p’. 68 t.s.n.,
December 8, 1967); that there is
but one cashier and only one registrar who himself is the administrative officer of the whole Laguna
College (pp. 68 and 70. t.s.n., December 8, 1967).  As a matter of fact the function of the
Administrative Officer who is no other than Wenceslao
Retizos extends even
to the high school department (pp. 71-73, t.s.n.,
December 8; 1967).  It is a fact that
there are some teachers involved in
this case who are teaching both in the college and high school departments (pp.
69 to 70, t.s.n, December 8, 1967; pp. 28, 111
and 131, December 14, 1967), which is a decisive
proof of the Community of interest of these teachers and which negates the
establishment of two bargaining units. 
Besides, in the proposed two
separate bargaining units, the
elementary teachers of the petitioner will be left out without a bargaining representative. Moreover,
considering that there are only one–hundred-thirty (130) teachers in this proceedings, after
twelve of the teachers were considered
supervisors and/or holding
confidential positions, to divide the collective bargaining unit into two would assuredly be dissipating their strength for collective bargaining
purposes, Furthermore, the proposition
would not be conducive to industrial peace for the possibility is great that, with the establishment
of two bargaining units,
petitioner would be contending with two different unions vying against each
other for better benefits to gain more members.”

Respondent LACTA avers in
it answer that the certification election authorized by respondent court has actualy been held. 
The instant petition, therefore, insofar as it seeks to enjoin
said election has already become moot, particularly in view of the fact that petitioner
participated therein actively, as also alleged in the same answer and nowhere denied by petitioner.  Whatever other questions there  are
relative to the conduct of such election may be ventilated before respondent
Court, which has jurisdiction over the main case.

In a supplemental petition filed on August 12, 1968, petitioner alleges that
respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the certification election to be held on
April 22, 1968, before the lapse of the
“ten?day period” or review of the resolution of respondent Court
dated April 5, 1968, copy of
which was received by petitioners on the following April 15.  This
new allegation deserves no serious consideration.  In the first place it is a new matter which should have been included in the original petition filed on April 20, 1968, wherein the prayer was that the certification
election scheduled for April 22 be suspended so that the matter of excluding certain employees from voting therein could first be settled. No reference
whatsoever was made to the fact
that the election, if held as thus scheduled would be premature for the reason
now advanced.  To admit the supplemental petition would in effect be to authorize an appeal beyond
the 30-day reglementary period. Secondly, the
supplemental petition has not cited any specific rule to the effect that a certification election may not
beheld until after the
expiration of 10 days from receipt by the parties of the enabling resolution of
the Industrial Court.  Finally,
as already adverted to, petitioner took part actively in the election, and in fact challenged
the right of 59 LACTA members to vote therein, raising no objection with
respect to the others.

Regarding the allegation
that the strike staged on April 3, 1968 was illegal and hence rendered the
strikers disqualified to vote, this is a matter that properly pertains to
the ULP charge filed by petitioner
precisely questioning the legality
of said strike, but which charge, according to respondents, has up to the
present not resulted in the filing of a formal complaint by the prosecuting officers of the Court Industrial
Relations.  Besides, as likewise alleged by respondents in their opposition to the supplemental petition, the
strikers returned to work on May 6, 1968 and were accepted back by petitioner, thus
rendering the issue of illegality moot and academic.

Wherefore, the petition is dismissed, without pro­nouncement
as to costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, Fernando, and Capistrano, JJ., concur.

Zaldivar, J., on official leave.