Batangas I Electric Cooperative v.

Young GR No 62386

Topic: Workers-Members of a Cooperative

FACTS:
1. This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
2. On June 1, 1981, the Batangas-I Electric Cooperative Union (hereinafter referred to as UNION)
filed with the Regional Office No. IV-A, Ministry of Labor and Employment (now Department of
Labor and Employment), at San Pablo City, a petition for certification election.
3. The UNION alleged, inter alia, that it is a legitimate labor organization; that the Batangas-I
Electric Cooperative Inc. BATELEC has 150 employees, more or less; that the UNION desires to
represent the regular rank and file employees of BATELEC for purposes of collective bargaining;
that there is no other union existing in BATELEC except the UNION; that there is no certified
collective bargaining agreement in the said cooperative; and that there has been no certification
election conducted in BATELEC during the last twelve (12) months preceding the filing of the
petition.
4. On August 20, 1981, Med-Arbiter Paterno D. Adap issued a resolution (pp. 21-23, Rollo) which
gave due course to the petition and ordered the holding of a certification election. On August 31,
1981, BATELEC filed a motion for reconsideration (pp. 24-30, Rollo) of the Med-Arbiter's resolution
contending, inter alia, that there was a legal impediment to the holding of a certification election
considering that the formation of a union in a cooperative is illegal and invalid, the officers and
members of the union being the owners thereof. This motion was treated as an appeal from the
Med-Arbiter's resolution of August 20, 1981
5. On November 27, 1981, a resolution (pp. 38-40, Rollo) was issued by Romeo A. Young, Officer
in Charge, Bureau of Labor Relations, granting the appeal and revoking the Med-Arbiter's order
mandating the holding of a certification election.

ISSUE:
1. whether or not employees of an electric cooperative who are at the same time members of the
cooperative, may be allowed to form or join a labor union in the electric cooperative for purposes
of collective bargaining.

RULING:
1. No. A cursory analysis of Section 35, Presidential Decree 269, as amended, readily shows that
employees of an electric cooperative who are themselves members of the cooperative have no
right to form or join a labor organization for purposes of collective bargaining.
In the first instance, a cooperative is established primarily for the mutual aid and protection of the
members thereof. It was never intended to operate like an ordinary company or corporation. A
cooperative is a non-profit organization, so that if ever there are gains, income or benefits derived
therefrom, the same are equally divided among its members. For all legal intents and purposes,
therefore, members of a cooperative are part-owners thereof.
In the instant case, petitioner strongly contended that they are not co-owners of the cooperative
because the only benefits that they derive therefrom are in the form of electrical services and that
they never exercise the attributes of ownership recognized under Article 428 of the New Civil Code.
We do not concur. The fact that these employees/members enjoy free electrical services which are
not available to non-members is a clear indication that these employees are co-owners of the
cooperative. Petitioner must be reminded that benefits from cooperative accruing to co-owners may
not come only in the form of monetary benefits but also in the form of services.

DISPOSITIVE: BATANGAS-I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC won.

The petition is DISMISSED and the challenged decision dated November 27, 1981 of respondent
Romeo A. Young, OIC of the Bureau of Labor Relations is AFFIRMED.

DOCTRINE:

“employees who at the same time are members of an electric cooperative are not entitled to form
or join unions for purposes of collective bargaining agreement, for certainly an owner cannot
bargain with himself or his co-owners.”

SAN MIGUEL INC. vs. SAN MIGUEL CORP. SUPERVISORS AND EXEMPT UNION G.R. No. L-
146206

TOPIC: Right to Self-Organization: Confidential Employees

FACTS:
1. In G.R. No. 110399, entitled San Miguel Corporation Supervisors and Exempt Union v.
Laguesma, 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.
2. Pursuant to the Court's decision in G.R. No. 110399, the Department of Labor and
Employment National Capital Region (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.
3. On August 31, 1998, Med-Arbiter Agatha Ann L. Daquigan issued an Order directing Election
Officer Cynthia Tolentino to proceed with the conduct of certification election in accordance with
Section 2, Rule XII of Department Order No. 9.
4. 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.
5. Med-Arbiter issued order directing the respondents to submit proof that the abovementioned
are eligible to vote. Respondent complied.
6. Petitioner appealed to DOLE Secretary, then to CA, averring its sentiments regarding
eligibility. Respondent counters that petitioners proposed exclusion of certain employees from the
bargaining unit was a rehashed issue, which was already settled in G.R. No. 110399. It maintains
that the issue of union membership coverage should no longer be raised as a certification election
already took place on September 30, 1998, wherein respondent won with 97% votes.
7. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with modification the Resolution 9 of the DOLE
Undersecretary, stating that those holding the positions of Human Resource Assistant and
Personnel Assistant are excluded from the bargaining unit.
8. 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.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA correctly ruled regarding the status of Payroll Master, Human
Resource Assistant and Personal Assistant as Confidential employees.
RULING: Yes to Human Resource assistant and Personal Assistant only.
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. 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.

A confidential employee is one entrusted with confidence on delicate, or with the custody, handling
or care and protection of the employers property. 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. 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 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. 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. 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.

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, 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, 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.

DISPOSITIVE: Petition is denied, Private respondent won.

DOCTRINE: 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. 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.
International Catholic Migration Commission vs. Calleja, GR No. 85750 September 28, 1990
Posted on August 2, 2008 by asteroids08
FACTS:
GR # 85750- the Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC) case.
ICMC was one of those accredited by the Philippine government to operate the refugee processing
center in Morong, Bataan. That comes from an argument between the Philippine government and
the United Nations High Commissioner for refugees for eventual resettlement to other countries
was to be established in Bataan.
ICMC was duly registered with the United Nations Economic and Social Council and enjoys
consultative status. As an international organization rendering voluntary and humanitarian services
in the Philippines, its activities are parallel to those of the international committee for migration and
the international of the red cross.
On July 14,1986, Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied for certification with the then Ministry
of Labor and Employment a petition for certification election among the rank and file members
employed by ICMC. The latter opposed the petition on the ground that it is an international
organization registered with the United Nations and hence, enjoys diplomatic immunity.
The Med-Arbiter sustained ICMC and dismissed the petition for each of jurisdiction. On appeal by
TUPAS, Director Calleja, reversed the Med-arbiter’s decision and ordered the immediate conduct
of a certification election. ICMC then sought the immediate dismissal of the TUPAS petition for
certification election involving the immunity expressly granted but the same was denied. With
intervention of department of foreign affairs who was legal interest in the outcome of this case, the
second division gave due to the ICMC petition and required the submittal of memoranda by the
parties.
GR # 89331- the IRRI case
The International Rice Research Institute was a fruit of memorandum of understanding between
the Philippine government and the Ford and Rochefeller Foundations. It was intended to be an
autonomous, philanthropic tax-free, non-profit, non stock organization designed to carry out the
principal objective of conducting “ basic research on the rice plant.”
It was organized and registered with the SEC as a private corporation subject to all laws and
regulations. However, by virtue of P.D no. 1620, IRRI was granted the status, prerogatives,
privileges and immunities of an international organization.
The Kapisanan filed a petition for direct certification election with regional office of the Department
of Labor and Employment. IRRI opposed the petition invoking Pres. Decree no.1620 conferring
upon it the status of an international organization and granting it immunity from all civil, criminal,
and administrative proceedings under Philippine laws. The Med-Arbiter upheld the opposition on
the basis of PD 1620 and dismissed the petition for direct certification.
On appeal by BLR Director, set aside the med-arbiter’s decision and contends that immunities and
privileges granted to IRRI do not include exemption from coverage of our labor laws.
ISSUES:
GR # 85750- the ICMC case:
Whether or not the grant of diplomatic privileges and immunities to ICMC extends to immunity from
the application of Philippine labor laws.
GR no. 89331- the IRRI case:
Whether or not the Secretary of Labor committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the
petition for certification election filed by Kapisanan.
RULING:
The grant of diplomatic privileges and immunities to ICMC extends to immunity from the application
of Philippine labor laws, because it is clearly necessitated by their international character and
respective purposes which is to avoid the danger of partiality and interference by the host country
in their internal workings.
Employees are not without recourse whenever there are disputes to be settled because each
specialized agency shall make provision for appropriate modes of settlement of disputes out of
contracts or other disputes of private character to which the specialized agency is a party.
Moreover, pursuant to article IV of memorandum of abuse of privilege by ICMC, the government is
free to withdraw the privileges and immunities accorded.
No grave abuse of discretion may be imputed to respondent secretary of labor in his assumption
of appelate jurisdiction, contrary to Kapisanan’s allegation, hence, any party to an election may
appeal the order or results of the elections as determined by the med-arbiter directly to the secretary
of labor and employment on the ground that the rules and regulations or parts thereof established
by the secretary of labor and employment for the conduct of the election have been violated.
Wherefore, petition granted in ICMC case and in IRRI case, the petition was dismissed.
Case Digest: Samahang Manggagawa v. Charter Chemical & Coating
G.R. No. 169717 : March 16, 2011

SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA CHARTER CHEMICAL SOLIDARITY OF UNIONS IN THE

PHILIPPINES FOR EMPOWERMENT AND REFORMS (SMCC-SUPER), ZACARRIAS JERRY
VICTORIO Union President, Petitioner, v. CHARTER CHEMICAL AND COATING
CORPORATION, Respondent.

DEL CASTILLO,J.:

FACTS:

Samahang Manggagawasa Charter Chemical Solidarity of Unions in the Philippines for

Empowerment and Reforms (petitioner union) filed a petition for certification election among the
regular rank-and-file employees of Charter Chemical and Coating Corporation (respondent
company) with the Mediation Arbitration Unit of the DOLE. Respondent company opposedon the
ground that petitioner union is not a legitimate labor organization because of failure to comply with
the documentation requirements set by law the charter certificate was not executed under oath,
and the inclusion of supervisory employees within petitioner union. The Med-Arbiter dismissed the
petition. The DOLE, on appeal, granted the petition for certification election but the CA reversed
the DOLE decision. The appellate court gave credence to the findings of the Med-Arbiter.

Petitioner union claims that the litigation of the issue as to its legal personality to file the subject
petition for certification election is barred by the Decision of the DOLE. In this decision, the DOLE
ruled that petitioner union complied with all the documentation requirements and that there was no
independent evidence presented to prove an illegal mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file
employees in petitioner union. After the promulgation of this Decision, respondent company did not
move for reconsideration, thus, this issue must be deemed settled.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner union has legal personality to file for a petition for certification
election.

HELD: Court of Appeals decision is

LABOR LAW

The right to file a petition for certification election is accorded to a labor organization provided that
it complies with the requirements of law for proper registration. The inclusion of supervisory
employees in a labor organization seeking to represent the bargaining unit of rank-and-file
employees does not divest it of its status as a legitimate labor organization.

Petitioner unions charter certificate need not be executed under oath. Consequently, it validly
acquired the status of a legitimate labor organization upon submission of (1) its charter
certificate,(2) the names of its officers, their addresses, and its principal office,and (3) its
constitution and by-laws the last two requirements having been executed under oath by the proper
union officials as borne out by the records.

Petitioner union correctly argues that its legal personality cannot be collaterally attacked in the
certification election proceedings.

GRANTED.