PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HON. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA AND PT & T SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES UNION-APSOTEU, RESPONDENTS.

Can a petition for certification election filed by supervisory
employees of an unorganized establishment – one without a certified bargaining
agent – be dismissed on the
ground that these employees are actually performing managerial functions?

This is the issue
for consideration in this petition for certiorari and mandamus,
with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order, of the
Resolution of 11 June 1991^[1]
of then Acting Secretary of Labor and Employment Nieves D. Confesor dismissing
the appeal from the Order of 11
December 1990^[2] of the Med-Arbiter which granted the
petition for certification election, and of the Order of 15 August 1991^[3] denying reconsideration.

On 22 October 1990, private respondent PT&T Supervisory
Employees Union-APSOTEU (UNION, for brevity) filed a petition before the
Industrial Relations Division of the Department of Labor and Employment praying
for the holding of a certification election among the supervisory employees of
petitioner Philippine Telegraph & Telephone Corporation (PT&T, for
brevity). On 29 October 1990, UNION
amended its petition to include the allegation that PT&T was an unorganized
establishment employing roughly 100 supervisory employees from whose ranks will
constitute the bargaining unit sought to be established.

On 22 November 1990, PT&T moved to dismiss the petition for
certification election on the ground that UNION members were performing
managerial functions and thus were not merely supervisory employees. Moreover, PT&T 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, 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.

On 4 December 1990, PT&T filed its reply to the opposition
and manifested that it is the function of an employee which is determinative of
whether said employee is a managerial or supervisory employee.

On 11 December 1990, the Med-Arbiter granted the petition and
ordered that “a certification election x x x (be) conducted among the
supervisory personnel of the Philippine Telegraph & Telephone Corporation
(PT&T).”^[4]
Petitioner PT&T appealed to the Secretary of Labor and Employment.

On 24 May 1991, PT&T filed its supplemental appeal and
attached copies of the job descriptions and employment service records of these
supervisory employees, including samples of memoranda and notices they made
which purportedly illustrate their exercise of management prerogatives. On 31 May 1991, petitioner submitted more
job descriptions to further bolster its contention.

On 11 June 1991, then Acting Secretary of Labor and Employment
Nieves R. Confesor denied petitioner’s appeal for lack of merit. However, she did not rule on the additional
evidence presented by PT&T. Instead, she directed that the evidence “should be scrutinized and
x x x considered during the exclusion-inclusion proceedings where the employees
who should be part of the bargaining unit x x x will be determined.”^[5]

On 15 August 1991, respondent Undersecretary of Labor and
Employment Bienvenido E. Laguesma denied reconsideration of the resolution
dismissing the appeal. Hence, the
instant petition anchored on the ground that public respondent committed grave
abuse of discretion in failing to rule on the additional evidence submitted by
petitioner which would have buttressed its contention that there were no
supervisory employees in its employ and which, as a consequence, would have
barred the holding of a certification election.

The petition is devoid of
merit.

The applicable provision of law in the case at bar is Art. 257 of
the Labor Code. It reads –

“Art. 257. 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” (underscoring
supplied).

The supervisory employees
of PT&T did not yet have a certified bargaining agent to represent them at
the time the UNION, which is a legitimate labor organization duly registered
with the Department of Labor and Employment,^[6] filed the petition for certification
election. Since no certified bargaining
agent represented the supervisory employees, PT&T may be deemed an
unorganized establishment within the purview of Art. 257 of the Labor Code.

The fact that
petitioner’s rank-and-file employees were already represented by a certified
bargaining agent does not make PT&T an organized establishment vis-a-vis
the supervisory employees. After all,
supervisory employees are “not x x x eligible for membership in a labor
organization of the rank-and-file employees.“^[7]

Consequently, the
Med-Arbiter, as sustained by public respondent, committed no grave abuse of
discretion in granting the petition for certification election among the
supervisory employees of petitioner PT&T because Art. 257 of the Labor Code
provides that said election should be automatically conducted upon filing of the petition. In fact, Sec. 6 of 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. It reads –

“Sec. 6. Procedure. –
Upon receipt of a petition, the
Regional Director shall assign the case to a Med-Arbiter for appropriate
action. The Med-Arbiter, upon receipt
of the assigned petition, shall have twenty (20) working days from submission
of the case for resolution within which 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 x x x” (underscoring supplied).

Furthermore, PT&T did
not possess the legal personality to file a motion to dismiss the petition for
certification election even if based on the ground that its supervisory
employees are in reality managerial employees. It is well-settled that an employer has no standing to question a
certification election^[8] since
this is the sole concern of the workers.^[9] The
only exception to this rule is where the employer has to file the petition for
certification election itself pursuant to Art. 258^[10]
of the Labor Code because it was requested to bargain collectively. But, other than this instance, the choice of
a collective bargaining agent is purely the internal affair of labor.^[11]

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. Indeed, this is precisely the purpose of the
exclusion-inclusion proceedings, i.e., to determine who among the employees are
entitled to vote and be part of the bargaining unit sought to be certified.

Then Acting Secretary Nieves D. Confesor therefore did not abuse
her discretion when she opted not to act upon the additional evidence presented
by petitioner PT&T. For, the holding of a certification election in an
unorganized establishment is mandatory and must immediately be ordered upon
petition by a legitimate labor organization, which is the case here.

At any rate, the
additional evidence presented by petitioner failed to sufficiently show that
the supervisory employees who sought to be included in the bargaining unit were
in fact performing managerial functions. On the contrary, while these supervisory employees did exercise
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, i.e., their respective superintendents. The Solicitor General succinctly puts it
thus –

“A perusal of petitioner’s annexes x x x would readily show
that the power of said supervisors in matters relating to the exercise of
prerogatives for or against rank-and-file employees
is not absolute but merely
recommendatory in character. Note
that their reports recommending or imposing disciplinary action against
rank-and-file employees always bore the concurrence of one or two superiors x x
x and the job descriptions x x x clearly stated that these supervisors directly
reported to a superior and were accountable to the latter”^[12] (underscoring supplied).

As the Med-Arbiter
himself noted, “it is incredible that only rank-and-file and managerial
employees are the personnel of respondent firm, considering the line of service
it offers to the public”^[13] and the fact that it employed 2,500
employees, more or less, all over the country.

A word more. PT&T alleges that respondent UNION is affiliated with the same national federation representing its
rank-and-file employees. Invoking Atlas Lithographic Services, Inc. v. Laguesma,^[14] PT&T seeks the disqualification
of respondent UNION. Respondent,
however, 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 Associated Professional, Supervisory Office,
Technical Employees Union or APSOTEU, which is a separate and distinct national
federation from ALU.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Petition for Certiorari
and Mandamus with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining
order is DENIED.

Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Griño-Aquino and
Quiason, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Annex “A”, Petition; Rollo, pp. 22-26.

^[2]
Annex “G”, Petition; Rollo,
pp. 28-30.

^[3]
Annex “B”, Petition; Rollo,
pp. 28-30.

^[4]
Annex “G”, Petition, p. 3; Rollo,
p. 52.

^[5]
Annex “A”, Petition, p. 3; Rollo,
p. 25.

^[6]
Rollo, p. 32.

^[7] 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 a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees
but may join, assist or form separate labor organizations of their own
(underscoring supplied).

^[8]
California Manufacturing Corporation v.
Laguesma, G.R. No. 97020, 8 June 1992, 209 SCRA 606.

^[9]
Asian Design and Manufacturing
Corporation v. Calleja, G.R. No. 77415, 29 June 1989, 174 SCRA 477.

^[10]
Art. 258. 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 x x x x

^[11]
Trade Unions of the Philippines and
Allied Services v. Trajano, G.R. No. 61153, 17 January 1983, 120 SCRA
64.

^[12]
Comment, p. 5; Rollo, p., 164.

^[13]
Annex “G”, Petition, p. 2; Rollo,
p. 51.

^[14]
G.R. No. 96566, 6 Janaury 1992, 205 SCRA 12.