PHILIPPINE PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HON. RUBEN D. TORRES, SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, HON. RODOLFO S. MILADO, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT …

PHILIPPINE PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER CORPORATION (PHILPHOS) assails
the decision of the Secretary of Labor of 7 August 1990 affirming the order of
the Mediator-Arbiter of 28 March 1990 which directed the immediate conduct of a
certification election among the supervisory,
professional or technical, and
confidential employees of petitioner corporation.

On 7 July 1989, Philphos Movement for Progress, Inc. (PMPI for
brevity), filed with the Department of Labor and Employment a petition for
certification election among the supervisory employees of petitioner, alleging
that as a supervisory union duly registered with the Department of Labor and Employment
it was seeking to represent the supervisory employees of Philippine Phosphate
Fertilizer Corporation.

The petition for certification election filed by PMPI was not
opposed by PHILPHOS. In fact, on 11
August 1989, PHILPHOS submitted a position paper with the Mediator-Arbiter
stating that its management welcomed the creation of a supervisory employees’
union provided the necessary requisites of law were properly observed, but
exempting from the union its superintendents who were managerial and not supervisory
employees as they managed a division, subdivision or section, and were
vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management
policies. PHILPHOS also asserted that
its professional or technical employees were not within the definition
of supervisory employees under the Labor Code as they were immediately under
the direction and supervision of its superintendents and supervisors. Moreover, the professional and technical
employees did not have a staff of workers under them. Consequently, petitioner prayed for the exclusion of its superintendents
and professional/technical employees from the PMPI supervisory union.

On 13 October 1989, Mediator-Arbiter Rodolfo S. Milado issued an
order directing the holding of a certification election among the supervisory
employees of petitioner, excluding therefrom the superintendents and
the professional and technical employees. He also directed the parties to attend the
pre-election conference on 19 April 1990 for the determination of the mechanics
of the election process and the qualifications and eligibility of those allowed
to vote.

On 15 November 1989, PMPI filed an amended petition with the
Mediator-Arbiter wherein it sought to represent not only the supervisory
employees of petitioner but also its professional/technical and confidential
employees. The amended petition was
filed in view of the amendment of the PMPI Constitution which included in its
membership the professional/technical and confidential employees.

On 14 December 1989, the parties therein agreed to submit their
respective position papers and to consider the amended petition submitted for
decision on the basis thereof and related documents.

On 28 March 1990, Mediator-Arbiter Milado issued an order
granting the petition and directing the holding of a certification election
among the “supervisory, professional (engineers, analysts,
mechanics, accountants, nurses, midwives, etc.), technical, and confidential
employees“^[1]
to comprise the proposed bargaining unit.

On 16 April 1990, PHILPHOS appealed the order of 28 March 1990 to
the Secretary of Labor and Employment who on 7 August 1990 rendered a decision
through Undersecretary Bienvenido Laguesma dismissing the appeal. PHILPHOS moved for reconsideration but the
same was denied; hence, the instant petition alleging grave abuse of discretion
on the part of public respondents in rendering the assailed rulings.

On 8 July 1991, this Court issued a temporary restraining order
enjoining respondents from holding the certification election among
petitioner’s supervisory, professional/technical, and confidential
employees scheduled on 12 July 1991.

There are two (2) issues raised by petitioner: (1) whether it was denied due process in the
proceedings before respondent Mediator-Arbiter; and, (2) whether its professional/technical
and confidential employees may validly join respondent PMPI union which
is composed of supervisors.

PHILPHOS claims that it was denied due process when respondent
Mediator-Arbiter granted the amended petition
of respondent PMPI without according PHILPHOS a new opportunity to be heard.

We do not see it the way
PHILPHOS does here. The essence of due
process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as applied to administrative
proceedings, an opportunity to explain one’s side or an opportunity to seek a
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.^[2] Where, as in the instant case, petitioner
PHILPHOS agreed to file its position paper with the Mediator-Arbiter and to
consider the case submitted for decision on the basis of the position papers
filed by the parties, there was sufficient compliance with the requirement of
due process, as petitioner was afforded reasonable opportunity to present its
side.^[3] Moreover, petitioner could have, if it so
desired, insisted on a hearing to confront and examine the witnesses of the
other party. But it did not;^[4] instead, it opted to submit its position
paper with the Mediator-Arbiter. Besides, petitioner had all the opportunity to ventilate its arguments
in its appeal to the Secretary of Labor.

As regards the second issue, we are with petitioner that being a supervisory
union, respondent PMPI cannot represent the professional/technical
and confidential employees of petitioner whose positions we find to be
more of the rank and file than supervisory.

With the enactment in March 1989 of R.A. 6715, employees were
thereunder reclassified into three (3) groups, namely: (a) managerial employees, (b) supervisory
employees, and (c) rank and file employees. The category of supervisory employees is once again recognized in the
present law.

Article 212, par. (m), of the Labor Code, as amended, provides
that “(s)upervisory employees are those who, in the interest of the
employer, effectively recommend such managerial actions if the exercise of such
authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of
independent judgment.” The definition of managerial employees is limited
to those having authority to hire and fire, while those who only recommend
effectively the hiring or firing or transfer of personnel are considered closer
to rank and file employees. The
exclusion therefore of mid-level executives from the category of managers has
brought about a third classification, the supervisory employees. The peculiar role of supervisors is such
that while they are not managers, when they recommend action implementing management policy or ask for the discipline or
dismissal of subordinates, they identify with the interests of the employer and
may act contrary to the interests of the rank and file.^[5]

In its position paper
submitted to the Mediator-Arbiter, petitioner described the positions and
functions of its professional/technical employees, (engineers, analysts,
mechanics, accountants, nurses and midwives). The guidelines, which were not refuted by respondent PMPI, state:

x x x x Professional and Technical
positions are those whose primary duty consists of the performance of work
directly related to management programs; who customarily, regularly and
routinarily exercise judgment in the application of concepts, methods, systems
and procedures in their respective fields of specialization; who regularly and
directly assist a managerial and/or supervisory employee, execute under general
supervision, work along specialized or technical lines requiring special
training, experience or knowledge, or execute under general supervision special
assignments and tasks x x x x They are immediately under the direction and
supervision of supervisors or superintendents. They have no men under them but are regularly called upon by their
supervisors or superintendents on some technical matters.^[6]

Moreover, Herculano A. Duhaylungsod, Personnel Officer of
petitioner, attested that there was no community of interests between the supervisors
of petitioner and the professional/technical employees; that as of 25
July 1990, personnel records showed that there were 125 supervisors and
271 professional/technical employees; that of the 271 professional/technical
employees, 150 were directly under and being supervised by supervisors,
while the rest were staff members of superintendents.^[7]

The certification of Personnel Officer Duhaylungsod that its professional/technical
employees occupy positions that are non-supervisory is evidence that said
employees belong to the rank and file.^[8] Quite
obviously, these professional/technical employees cannot effectively
recommend managerial actions with the use of independent judgment because they
are under the supervision of superintendents and supervisors. Because it is unrefuted that these professional/technical
employees are performing non-supervisory functions, hence considered
admitted, they should be classified, at least for purposes of this case, as rank
and file employees. Consequently,
these professional/technical employees, cannot be allowed to join a
union composed of supervisors. Conversely, supervisory employees cannot join a labor
organization of employees under their supervision but may validly form a
separate organization of their own.^[9] This
is provided in Art. 245 of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. No. 6715, to wit:

x x x x 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.

Respondent PMPI is supposed to be a union of 125
supervisors. If the professional/technical
employees are included as members, and records show that they are 271 in
all or much more than the supervisors, then PMPI will turn out to be a rank
and file union with the supervisors as members.

This is precisely the situation which the law prohibits. It would create an obvious conflict of views
among the members, or at least between two (2) groups of members espousing
opposing interests. The intent of the
law is to avoid a situation where supervisors would merge with the rank
and file, or where the supervisors’ labor organization would represent
conflicting interests, especially where, as in the case at bar, the supervisors
will be commingling with those employees whom they directly supervise in their
own bargaining unit. Members of the
supervisory union might refuse to carry out disciplinary measures against their co-member rank and file
employees.^[10]

Supervisors have the right to form their own union or
labor organization. What the law
prohibits is a union whose membership comprises of supervisors merging
with the rank and file employees because this is where conflict of
interests may arise in the areas of discipline, collective bargaining and
strikes.^[11]
The professional/technical employees of petitioner therefore may join
the existing rank and file union, or form a union separate and distinct
from the existing union organized by the rank and file employees of the same
company.

As to the confidential employees of the petitioner, the
latter has not shown any proof or compelling reason to exclude them from joining
respondent PMPI and from participating in the certification election, unless
these confidential employees are the same professional/technical employees whom
we find to be occupying rank and file positions.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of respondent Secretary of
Labor of 7 August 1990, as well as the order of the respondent Mediator-Arbiter
of 28 March 1990, is SET ASIDE. The
professional/technical employees of petitioner Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer
Corporation (PHILPHOS) are declared disqualified from affiliating with
respondent Philphos Movement for Progress, Inc. (PMPI).

The Department of Labor is directed to order immediately the
conduct of certification election among the supervisory employees of
petitioner, particularly excluding therefrom its professional and technical
employees.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Davide, Jr., Quiason, and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 56.

^[2]
PLDT v. NLRC, G.R. No. 71499, 19 July 1989, 175 SCRA 437.

^[3]
Maglutac v. NLRC, G.R. 78345, 21 September 1990, 189 SCRA 767.

^[4]
Chua-Qua v. Clave, G.R. 49549, 30 August 1990, 189 SCRA 117.

^[5]
Atlas Lithographic Services, Inc. v. Laguesma, G.R. No. 96566, 6 January
1992, 205 SCRA 12.

^[6]
Rollo, pp. 35-36.

^[7]
Rollo, pp. 88-89.

^[8]
Hipolito v. Ferrer-Calleja, G.R. No. 81830, 1 October 1990, 190 SCRA
182.

^[9]
Adamson & Adamson, Inc. v. No. L-35120, 31 January 1984, 127 SCRA
268.

^[10]
See Note 5.

^[11]
Ibid.