NAPOLEON MAGALIT, ET AL., PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Napoleon Magalit, et al., all employees of the Philippine Charity
Sweepstakes Office, filed a complaint for unfair labor practice with the Court
of Industrial Relations against Geronimo Quadra, et al., charging them with a
violation of the Magna Carta of Labor in that being
supervisors they joined a union formed exclusively of rank and file employees of
said office. Having found merit in the charge, a prosecutor of the court filed a
formal complaint averring therein the requisite acts constituting the unfair
labor practice complained of.

Notified of the charge,
respondents answered denying the commission of the act imputed to them and
alleging that the charge is but an election gimmick to discredit respondents in
connection with the election of officers of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes
Employees Association for the year 1962 in order to bolster the chances of
complainants who themselves were aspirants for the same or similar positions.
Incidentally, respondents prayed that they be awarded damages in the amount of
P10,000.00.

Honorable Jose
S. Bautista, presiding judge, heard the case, and, thereafter, rendered decision
dismissing the complaint. He found that under the charter
creating the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office,^[1]
the general powers of the office are lodged in a board of directors, composed of
five members, being its policy-determining body, and the general manager created
therein is given the direction and control of the office in all matters not
specifically reserved to the board. In addition, he is given the power to
appoint the personnel of the office except the auditor and the personnel
assigned to him, and in implementing the policies of the board, the general
manager acts thru the department managers whose recommendations are merely routinary since the policies are already defined and fixed
by the board. In short, he is of the opinion that the general manager is the
only official in that office who may be considered as supervisor within the
meaning of the Magna Carta.

This decision was affirmed by the
court en banc, with the dissent of Judge Amando
C. Bugayong. The case is now before us on a petition
for review.

The issue now to be resolved is:
Is there any factual basis for the conclusion that respondents are not
supervisors within the meaning of the Magna Carta of
Labor?

Under the law, supervisor means
“any person having authority * * * to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall,
discharge, assign, recommend, or discipline other employees * * * or effectively
to recommend such acts if, in connection with the foregoing, the exercise of
such authority is not of a merely routinary or
clerical nature but requires the use of independent judgment” (Section 2 (k)
Republic Act No. 875). This means that a person holds a supervisory position if,
among others, he can recommend acts that are not merely routinary or clerical but require the use of independent
judgment. Do the positions occupied by respondents include the performance of
acts other than routinary, or which require the use of
discretion? Do they have the power in connection with the duties of their office
to recommend the performance of acts which requires the use of independent
judgment? To answer these questions it is necessary that we go to the nature of
their positions and the functions and duties incident
thereto.

In this connection, it is
important that we take note of the statements the respondents have submitted to
the Wage and Position Classification Office, WAPCO for short, denominated
Position Description Forms wherein they made a detailed relation of their
functions and duties. While the entries contained therein were personally made
by the personnel concerned, they were all approved by their Department Heads and
confirmed by the General Manager of the office. They were submitted to the WAPCO
in order that this office may classify the positions then existing and may give
them their proper classification and salary range. These statements are,
therefore, official in character and as such, can be considered as the true
index of the functions and duties of the employees concerned, since the law
creating the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office does not mention any position
other than that of the general manager, it merely
empowers him to appoint the subordinate personnel that may be necessary. Hence,
it can readily be seen that that position cannot be regarded as the only
supervisor in legal contemplation for he alone cannot discharge and carry out
the work envisioned by the law-makers ‘in creating the Philippine Charity
Sweepstakes Office.

Now, what do these Position
Description Forms contain relative to the functions and duties of respondents.
To this effect it is enough that we take a look at what it is related under the
title “Statement of Duties” appearing in each and everyone of them and this much
we will find: that each and everyone exercise general supervision over a group
of executive assistants in performing a variety of research, administrative and
technical duties, or is given the power to recommend action on a variety of
matters pertaining to the operation of the business of the office and, in
general, each performs such other duties as may be assigned to them by the
general manager. These duties are given them in addition to other functions that
are peculiar to the positions they hold. And judging from their nature there is
no doubt that these officials come within the category of supervisors within the
meaning of Section 2 (k) of Republic Act 875.

It is true that respondent
Geronimo Quadra, besides his duties as chief legal officer, likewise acts as liaison officer between the Sweepstakes Office and those of
Congress, the Civil Service Commission and the Office of the President, but this
assignment does not strip him of his regular function as supervisor. In
other words, notwithstanding this assignment, his supervisory power over the
personnel working in his office is retained. His character as supervisor is not
nullified.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed
from is reversed. It is hereby ordered that respondents cease to be member of
respondent union, and as such should resign from the offices to which they had
been elected. No costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J. P. and Zaldivar, JJ.,
concur.

^[1] Republic Act No. 1169, as
amended by Republic Act No. 1622.