Pet.

-RP
Resp.- KAWASHIMA TEXTILE MFG., PHILIPPINES, INC
-KFWU filed with DOLE Regional Office No. IV, a Petition for Certification
Election to be conducted in the bargaining unit composed of 145 rank-and-file
employees of respondent.
-Attached to its petition are a Certificate of Creation of Local/Chapter6 issued on
January 19, 2000 by DOLE Regional Office No. IV, stating that it [KFWU]
submitted to said office a Charter Certificate issued to it by the national federation
Phil. Transport & General Workers Organization (PTGWO), and a Report of
Creation of Local/Chapter.
-Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss8 the petition on the ground that KFWU did
not acquire any legal personality because its membership of mixed rank-and-file
and supervisory employees violated Article 245 of the Labor Code, and its failure
to submit its books of account.
-Med-Arbiter Bactin found KFWUs legal personality defective and dismissed its
petition for certification election that at least two (2) members of [KFWU],
namely: Dany I. Fernandez and Jesus R. Quinto, Jr. are supervisory employees, are
prohibited under Article 245 of the Labor Code, as amended, to join the union of
the rank and file employees.
* Dany I. Fernandez and Jesus R. Quinto, Jr., Chief Engineers of the
Maintenance and Manufacturing Department, respectively, act as foremen to the
line engineers, mechanics and other non-skilled workers and responsible [for] the
preparation and organization of maintenance shop fabrication and schedules,
inventory and control of materials and supplies and tasked to implement training
plans on line engineers and evaluate the performance of their subordinates. The
above-stated actual functions of Dany I. Fernandez and Jesus R. Quinto, Jr. are
clear manifestation that they are supervisory employees.
-Meanwhile, KFWU appealed14 to the DOLE which granted the petition and
stated that supervisory employees ineligible for membership in a labor organization
for rank-and-file employees, the provision did not state the effect of such
prohibited membership on the legitimacy of the labor organization and its right to

file for certification election. Neither was such mixed membership a ground for
cancellation of its registration.
-CA reversed the decision.
SC- reinstated DOLE.
HELD:
All the foregoing supporting requirements shall be certified under oath by the
Secretary or the Treasurer of the local/chapter and attested to by its President
which does not require that, for its creation and registration, a local or chapter
submit a list of its members.

Then came Tagaytay Highlands Intl. Golf Club, Inc. v. Tagaytay Highlands
Employees Union-PGTWO54 in which the core issue was whether mingling
affects the legitimacy of a labor organization and its right to file a petition for
certification election. This time, given the altered legal milieu, the Court
abandoned the view in Toyota and Dunlop and reverted to its pronouncement in
Lopez that while there is a prohibition against the mingling of supervisory and
rank-and-file employees in one labor organization, the Labor Code does not
provide for the effects thereof.55 Thus, the Court held that after a labor
organization has been registered, it may exercise all the rights and privileges of a
legitimate labor organization. Any mingling between supervisory and rank-and-file
employees in its membership cannot affect its legitimacy for that is not among the
grounds for cancellation of its registration, unless such mingling was brought about
by misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under Article 239 of the Labor
Code.56
In San Miguel Corp. (Mandaue Packaging Products Plants) v. Mandaue Packing
Products Plants-San Miguel Packaging Products-San Miguel Corp. Monthlies
Rank-and-File Union-FFW,57 the Court explained that since the 1997 Amended
Omnibus Rules does not require a local or chapter to provide a list of its members,
it would be improper for the DOLE to deny recognition to said local or chapter on
account of any question pertaining to its individual members.58

More to the point is Air Philippines Corporation v. Bureau of Labor Relations,59

which involved a petition for cancellation of union registration filed by the
employer in 1999 against a rank-and-file labor organization on the ground of
mixed membership:60 the Court therein reiterated its ruling in Tagaytay Highlands
that the inclusion in a union of disqualified employees is not among the grounds
for cancellation, unless such inclusion is due to misrepresentation, false statement
or fraud under the circumstances enumerated in Sections (a) and (c) of Article 239
of the Labor Code.61lavvphil
All said, while the latest issuance is R.A. No. 9481, the 1997 Amended Omnibus
Rules, as interpreted by the Court in Tagaytay Highlands, San Miguel and Air
Philippines, had already set the tone for it. Toyota and Dunlop no longer hold sway
in the present altered state of the law and the rules.
Consequently, the Court reverses the ruling of the CA and reinstates that of the
DOLE granting the petition for certification election of KFWU.
Now to the second issue of whether an employer like respondent may collaterally
attack the legitimacy of a labor organization by filing a motion to dismiss the
latters petition for certification election.
Except when it is requested to bargain collectively,62 an employer is a mere
bystander to any petition for certification election; such proceeding is nonadversarial and merely investigative, for the purpose thereof is to determine which
organization will represent the employees in their collective bargaining with the
employer.63 The choice of their representative is the exclusive concern of the
employees; the employer cannot have any partisan interest therein; it cannot
interfere with, much less oppose, the process by filing a motion to dismiss or an
appeal from it;64 not even a mere allegation that some employees participating in a
petition for certification election are actually managerial employees will lend an
employer legal personality to block the certification election.65 The employer's
only right in the proceeding is to be notified or informed thereof.

SAN MIGUEL FOODS vs SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION SUPERVISORS and

EXEMPT UNION
In G.R. No. 110399, entitled San Miguel Corporation Supervisors and
Exempt Union v. Laguesma,[1] the Court held that even if they handle
confidential 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 confidential 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.
-DOLE-NCR conducted pre-election conferences.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.
-Med-Arbiter issued an Order directing Election Officer Cynthia Tolentino to
proceed with the conduct of certification election.
-Petitioner filed the Omnibus Objections and Challenge to Voters, 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.
* Specifically, it argued that certain employees should not be allowed to vote as
they are: (1) confidential 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.
-Adding the results to the number of votes canvassed during the September 30,
1998 certification election, the final 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.
[10]

-The Med-Arbiter issued the Resolution directing the parties to appear before the
Election Officer of the Labor Relations Division, for the opening of the segregated
ballots. The segregated ballots were opened, showing that out of the 76
segregatedvotes, 72 were cast for Yes and 3 for No, with one spoiled ballot.
Med-Arbiter issued the Order stating that since the Yes vote received 97% of the
valid votes cast, respondent is certified 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.
-Acting DOLE Undersecretary affirmed the order exempting only the positions of
Human Resource Assistant and Personnel Assistant are excluded from the
bargaining unit.
-CA affirmed.
-SC affirmed.
ISSUE: 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 petitioners 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 defined by the CA in the present
case, includes employees engaged in live chicken operations, i.e., those who
breed chicks and grow chickens.

HELD:
-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, oneunion policy. An appropriate bargaining unit is defined as a group of employees of
a given employer, comprised of all or less than all 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.[21]
In National Association of Free Trade Unions v. Mainit Lumber Development
Company Workers Union United Lumber and General Workers of the Phils,[22]
the Court, taking into account the community or mutuality of interests test,
ordered the formation of a single bargaining unit consisting of the Sawmill
Division in Butuan City and the Logging Division in Zapanta Valley, Kitcharao,
Agusan [Del] Norte of the Mainit Lumber Development Company. It held that
while the existence of a bargaining history is a factor that may be reckoned with in
determining the appropriate bargaining unit, the same is not decisive or conclusive.
Other factors must be considered. The test of grouping is community or mutuality
of interest. This is so because the basic test of an asserted bargaining units
acceptability is whether or not it is fundamentally the combination which will best
assure to all employees the exercise of their collective bargaining rights.[23]
Certainly, there is a mutuality of interest among the employees of the Sawmill
Division and the Logging Division. Their functions mesh with one another. One
group needs the other in the same way that the company needs them both. There
may be differences as to the nature of their individual assignments, but the
distinctions are not enough to warrant the formation of a separate bargaining unit.
-Thus, applying the ruling to the present case, the Court affirms the finding of the
CA that there should be only one bargaining unit for the employees in Cabuyao,
San Fernando, and Otis[25] of Magnolia Poultry Products Plant involved in
dressed chicken processing and Magnolia Poultry Farms engaged in live
chicken operations. Certain factors, such as specific line of work, working
conditions, location of work, mode of compensation, and other relevant conditions
do not affect or impede their commonality of interest. Although they seem

separate and distinct from each other, the specific tasks of each division are
actually interrelated and there exists mutuality of interests which warrants the
formation of a single bargaining unit.

-Petitioner asserts that the CA erred in not excluding the position of Payroll Master
in the definition of a confidential employee and, thus, prays that the said position
and all other positions with access to salary and compensation data be excluded
from the bargaining unit.
This argument must fail. Confidential employees are defined as those who (1)
assist or act in a confidential capacity, in regard (2) to persons who formulate,
determine, and effectuate management policies in the field of labor relations.[26]
The two criteria are cumulative, and both must be met if an employee is to be
considered a confidential employee - that is, the confidential relationship must
exist between the employee and his supervisor, and the supervisor must handle the
prescribed responsibilities relating to labor relations. The exclusion from
bargaining units of employees who, in the normal course of their duties, become
aware of management policies relating to labor relations is a principal objective
sought to be accomplished by the confidential employee rule.[27]
A confidential employee is one entrusted with confidence on delicate, or with the
custody, handling or care and protection of the employers property.[28]
Confidential employees, such as accounting personnel, should be excluded from
the bargaining unit, as their access to confidential information may become the
source of undue advantage.[29] However, such fact does not apply to the position
of Payroll Master and the whole gamut of employees who, as perceived by
petitioner, has access to salary and compensation data. The CA correctly held that
the position of Payroll Master does not involve dealing with confidential labor
relations information in the course of the performance of his functions. Since the
nature of his work does not pertain to company rules and regulations and
confidential labor relations, it follows that he cannot be excluded from the subject
bargaining unit.
Corollarily, although Article 245[30] of the Labor Code limits the ineligibility to
join, form and assist any labor organization to managerial employees,

jurisprudence has extended this prohibition to confidential employees or those who

by reason of their positions or nature of work are required to assist or act in a
fiduciary manner to managerial employees and, hence, are likewise privy to
sensitive and highly confidential records.[31] Confidential employees are thus
excluded from the rank-and-file bargaining unit. The rationale for their separate
category and disqualification to join any labor organization is similar to the
inhibition for managerial employees, because if allowed to be affiliated with a
union, the latter might not be assured of their loyalty in view of evident conflict of
interests and the union can also become company-denominated with the presence
of managerial employees in the union membership.[32] Having access to
confidential information, confidential employees may also become the source of
undue advantage. Said employees may act as a spy or spies of either party to a
collective bargaining agreement.[33]
In this regard, the CA correctly ruled that the positions of Human Resource
Assistant and Personnel Assistant belong to the category of confidential
employees and, hence, are excluded from the bargaining unit, considering their
respective positions and job descriptions. As Human Resource Assistant,[34] the
scope of ones work necessarily involves labor relations, recruitment and
selection of employees, access to employees' personal files and compensation
package, and human resource management. As regards a Personnel Assistant,[35]
one's work includes the recording of minutes for management during collective
bargaining negotiations, assistance to management during grievance meetings and
administrative investigations, and securing legal advice for labor issues from the
petitioners team of lawyers, and implementation of company programs.
Therefore, in the discharge of their functions, both gain access to vital labor
relations information which outrightly disqualifies them from union membership.

-The proceedings for certification election are quasi-judicial in nature and,

therefore, decisions rendered in such proceedings can attain finality.[36] 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 certification 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 certification election,
since this is the sole concern of the workers.[37] Law and policy demand that
employers take a strict, hands-off stance in certification elections. The bargaining
representative of employees should be chosen free from any extraneous influence
of management. A labor bargaining representative, to be effective, must owe its
loyalty to the employees alone and to no other.[38] The only exception is where
the employer itself has to file the petition pursuant to Article 258[39] of the Labor
Code because of a request to bargain collectively.

8. MARIWASA SIAM CERAMICS, INC- Pet

Sec Of DOLE

-May 4, 2005- respondent Samahan Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa Mariwasa Siam

Ceramics, Inc. (SMMSC-Independent) was issued a Certificate of Registration as a
legitimate labor organization by DOLE.
-June 14, 2005, petitioner Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. filed a Petition for
Cancellation of Union Registration against respondent, claiming that the latter
violated Article 234 of the Labor Code for not complying with the 20%
requirement, and that it committed massive fraud and misrepresentation in
violation of Article 239 of the same code.
-Regional Director of DOLE issued an Order granting the petition, revoking the
registration of respondent, and delisting it from the roster of active labor unions.
-Aggrieved, respondent appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) which
granted the same.
-.Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the BLR denied it. CA affirmed
it.

*The petitioner insists that respondent failed to comply with the 20% union
membership requirement for its registration as a legitimate labor organization
because of the disaffiliation from the total number of union members of 102
employees who executed affidavits recanting their union membership.

HELD:
In the case of La Suerte Cigar and Cigarette Factory v. Director of the Bureau of
Labor Relations[11] is enlightening, viz.
On the second issuewhether or not the withdrawal of 31 union
members from NATU affected the petition for certification election
insofar as the 30% requirement is concerned, We reserve the
Order of the respondent Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations,
it appearing undisputably that the 31 union members had
withdrawn their support to the petition before the filing of said
petition. It would be otherwise if the withdrawal was made after
the filing of the petition for it would then be presumed that the
withdrawal was not free and voluntary. The presumption would
arise that the withdrawal was procured through duress, coercion
or for valuable consideration. In other words, the distinction must
be that withdrawals made before the filing of the petition are
presumed voluntary unless there is convincing proof to the
contrary, whereas withdrawals made after the filing of the petition
are deemed involuntary.
The reason for such distinction is that if the withdrawal or
retraction is made before the filing of the petition, the names of
employees supporting the petition are supposed to be held secret
to the opposite party. Logically, any such withdrawal or retraction
shows voluntariness in the absence of proof to the contrary.
Moreover, it becomes apparent that such employees had not
given consent to the filing of the petition, hence the subscription
requirement has not been met.

When the withdrawal or retraction is made after the

petition is filed, the employees who are supporting the petition
become known to the opposite party since their names are
attached to the petition at the time of filing. Therefore, it would
not be unexpected that the opposite party would use foul means
for the subject employees to withdraw their support

- In the instant case, the affidavits of recantation were executed after the identities
of the union members became public, i.e., after the union filed a petition for
certification election on May 23, 2005, since the names of the members were
attached to the petition. The purported withdrawal of support for the registration of
the union was made after the documents were submitted to the DOLE, Region IVA. The logical conclusion, therefore, following jurisprudence, is that the
employees were not totally free from the employers pressure, and so the
voluntariness of the employees execution of the affidavits becomes suspect.
It is likewise notable that the first batch of 25 pro forma affidavits shows that the
affidavits were executed by the individual affiants on different dates from May 26,
2005 until June 3, 2005, but they were all sworn before a notary public on June 8,
2005.
There was also a second set of standardized affidavits executed on different dates
from May 26, 2005 until July 6, 2005. While these 77 affidavits were notarized on
different dates, 56 of these were notarized on June 8, 2005, the very same date
when the first set of 25 was notarized. Considering that the first set of 25 affidavits
was submitted to the DOLE on June 14, 2005, it is surprising why petitioner was
able to submit the second set of affidavits only on July 12, 2005.
Accordingly, we cannot give full credence to these affidavits, which were
executed under suspicious circumstances, and which contain allegations
unsupported by evidence. At best, these affidavits are self-serving. They possess
no probative value.
- A retraction does not necessarily negate an earlier declaration. For this reason,
retractions are looked upon with disfavor and do not automatically exclude the

original statement or declaration based solely on the recantation. It is imperative

that a determination be first made as to which between the original and the new
statements should be given weight or accorded belief, applying the general rules on
evidence. In this case, inasmuch as they remain bare allegations, the purported
recantations should not be upheld.
Nevertheless, even assuming the veracity of the affidavits of recantation, the
legitimacy of respondent as a labor organization must be affirmed. While it is true
that the withdrawal of support may be considered as a resignation from the union,
the fact remains that at the time of the unions application for registration, the
affiants were members of respondent and they comprised more than the required
20% membership for purposes of registration as a labor union. Article 234 of the
Labor Code merely requires a 20% minimum membership during the application
for union registration. It does not mandate that a union must maintain the 20%
minimum membership requirement all throughout its existence.

-Respondent asserts that it had a total of 173 union members at the time it applied
for registration. Two names were repeated in respondents list and had to be
deducted, but the total would still be 171 union members. Further, out of the four
names alleged to be no longer connected with petitioner, only two names should be
deleted from the list since Diana Motilla and T.W. Amutan resigned from petitioner
only on May 10, 2005 and May 17, 2005, respectively, or after respondents
registration had already been granted. Thus, the total union membership at the
time of registration was 169. Since the total number of rank-and-file employees at
that time was 528, 169 employees would be equivalent to 32% of the total rankand-file workers complement, still very much above the minimum required by law.
For the purpose of de-certifying a union such as respondent, it must be
shown that there was misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection with
the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto;
the minutes of ratification; or, in connection with the election of officers, the
minutes of the election of officers, the list of voters, or failure to submit these
documents together with the list of the newly elected-appointed officers and their
postal addresses to the BLR.

The bare fact that two signatures appeared twice on the list of those who
participated in the organizational meeting would not, to our mind, provide a valid
reason to cancel respondents certificate of registration. The cancellation of a
unions registration doubtless has an impairing dimension on the right of labor to
self-organization. For fraud and misrepresentation to be grounds for cancellation
of union registration under the Labor Code, the nature of the fraud and
misrepresentation must be grave and compelling enough to vitiate the consent of a
majority of union members.
In this case, we agree with the BLR and the CA that respondent could not have
possibly committed misrepresentation, fraud, or false statements. The alleged
failure of respondent to indicate with mathematical precision the total number of
employees in the bargaining unit is of no moment, especially as it was able to
comply with the 20% minimum membership requirement. Even if the total
number of rank-and-file employees of petitioner is 528, while respondent declared
that it should only be 455, it still cannot be denied that the latter would have more
than complied with the registration requirement.