You are on page 1of 5

G.R. No.

85333 February 26, 1990
PALACOL vs. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA
FACTS: October 12, 1987, the respondent Manila CCBPI Sales Force Union (hereinafter referred to as the
Union), as the collective bargaining agent of all regular salesmen, regular helpers, and relief helpers of the
Manila Plant and Metro Manila Sales Office of the respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers (Philippines), Inc.
(hereinafter referred to as the Company) concluded a new collective bargaining agreement with the latter.
Salary increase given in lump sum.
president of the Union submitted to the Company the ratification by the union members of the new CBA and
authorization for the Company to deduct union dues equivalent to P10.00 every payday or P20.00 every
month and, in addition, 10% by way of special assessment, from the CBA lump-sum pay granted to the union
members.
Board Resolution of the Union dated September 29, 1987, the purpose of the special assessment sought to be
levied is “to put up a cooperative and credit union; purchase vehicles and other items needed for the benefit of
the officers and the general membership; and for the payment for services rendered by union officers,
consultants and others.” There was also an additional proviso stating that the “matter of allocation … shall be
at the discretion of our incumbent Union President. Authorization and CBA Ratification”was obtained by the
Union through a secret referendum held in separate local membership meetings on various dates
800 members. 672 members originally authorized the 10% special assessment, while 173 opposed the same.
170) members of the Union submitted documents to the Company stating that although they have ratified the
new CBA, they are withdrawing or disauthorizing the deduction of any amount from their CBA lump sum. Later,
185 other union members submitted similar documents expressing the same intent. These members,
numbering 355 in all (170 + 185), added to the original oppositors of 173, turned the tide in favor of
disauthorization for the special assessment, with a total of 528 objectors and a remainder of 272 supporters.
The company filed an action for interpleader with the Bureau of Labor Relations in order to resolve the
conflicting claims of the parties concerned. Petitioners, who are regular rank-and-file employees of the
Company and bona fide members of the Union, filed a motion/complaint for intervention therein in two groups
of 161 and 94, respectively. They claimed to be among those union members who either did not sign any
individual written authorization, or having signed one, subsequently withdrew or retracted their signatures
therefrom.
Union countered that the deductions not only have the popular indorsement and approval of the general
membership, but likewise complied with the legal requirements of Article 241 (n) and (o) of the Labor Code in
that the board resolution of the Union imposing the questioned special assessment had been duly approved in
a general membership meeting and that the collection of a special fund for labor education and research is
mandated.
Med-Arbiter Manases T. Cruz ruled in favor of petitioners in an order dated February 15, 1988 whereby he
directed the Company to remit the amount it had kept in trust directly to the rank-and-file personnel without
delay. Appealed to BLR, reversed.
RULING: convinced that the deduction of the 10% special assessmentby the Union was not made in
accordance with the requirements provided by law.
The principle “that employees are protected by law from unwarranted practices that diminish their
compensation without their known edge andconsent” is in accord with the constitutional principle of the State
affording full protection to labor.

the failure of the Union to comply strictly with the requirements set out by the law invalidates the questioned
special assessment. Substantialcompliance is not enough in view of the fact that the special assessment will
diminish the compensation of the union members. Their express consent is required, and this consent must be
obtained in accordance with the steps outlined by law, which must be followed to the letter. No shortcuts are
allowed.
held local membership meetings on separate occasions, on different dates and at various venues, contrary to
the express requirement that there must be a general membership meeting. The contention of the Union that
“the local membership meetings are precisely the very general meetings required by law” is untenable
because the law would not have specified a general membership meeting had the legislative intent been to
allow local meetings in lieu of the latter.
submitted only minutes of the local membership meetings when what is required is a written resolution
adopted at the general meeting.
The minutes submitted to the Company contained no list of the members present and no record of the votes
cast.
Handwritten authorization which complied with the law is valid. However, its withdrawal means no
authorization was given.
Victoriano v Elizalde Rope Workers' Union (Labor Relations)
G.R. No. L-25246 September 12, 1974
BENJAMIN VICTORIANO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ELIZALDE ROPE WORKERS' UNION and ELIZALDE ROPE
FACTORY, INC., defendants, ELIZALDE ROPE WORKERS' UNION, defendant-appellant.
ZALDIVAR, J.:
FACTS:
Benjamin Victoriano (hereinafter referred to as Appellee), a member of the religious sect known as the "Iglesia
ni Cristo", had been in the employ of the Elizalde Rope Factory, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Company)
since 1958.
As such employee, he was a member of the Elizalde Rope Workers' Union (hereinafter referred to as Union)
which had with the Company a collective bargaining agreement containing a closed shop provision which
reads as follows:
Membership in the Union shall be required as a condition of employment for all permanent employees workers
covered by this Agreement.
The collective bargaining agreement expired on March 3, 1964 but was renewed the following day, March 4,
1964.
Under Section 4(a), paragraph 4, of Republic Act No. 875, prior to its amendment by Republic Act No. 3350,
the employer was not precluded "from making an agreement with a labor organization to require as a condition
of employment membership therein, if such labor organization is the representative of the employees." On
June 18, 1961, however, Republic Act No. 3350 was enacted, introducing an amendment to — paragraph (4)
subsection (a) of section 4 of Republic Act No. 875, as follows: ... "but such agreement shall not cover
members of any religious sects which prohibit affiliation of their members in any such labor organization".
Being a member of a religious sect that prohibits the affiliation of its members with any labor organization,
Appellee presented his resignation to appellant Union in 1962, and when no action was taken thereon, he
reiterated his resignation on September 3, 1974. Thereupon, the Union wrote a formal letter to the Company
asking the latter to separate Appellee from the service in view of the fact that he was resigning from the Union
as a member.
The management of the Company in turn notified Appellee and his counsel that unless the Appellee could
achieve a satisfactory arrangement with the Union, the Company would be constrained to dismiss him from
the service.
This prompted Appellee to file an action for injunction, docketed as Civil Case No. 58894 in the Court of First
Instance of Manila to enjoin the Company and the Union from dismissing Appellee. 1 In its answer, the Union
invoked the "union security clause" of the collective bargaining agreement; assailed the constitutionality of

not identity of rights. He is exempted ipso jure without need of any positive act on his part. DECISION OF LOWER COURTS: * CFI . The guaranty of equal protection of the laws is not a guaranty of equality in the application of the laws upon all citizens of the state. from dismissing the plaintiff from his present employment and sentencing the defendant Elizalde Rope Workers' Union to pay the plaintiff P500 for attorney's fees and the costs of this action Appeal to this Court on purely questions of law. or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. the benefit upon the religious sects is merely incidental and indirect. are relieved from the obligation to continue as such members NO. 875. without discrimination and preference. 3350 cannot be said to violate the constitutional inhibition of the "no-establishment" (of religion) clause of the Constitution. violates the constitutional provision that "no religious test shall be required for the exercise of a civil right. the exemption from the effects of closed shop agreement does not directly advance. Assessed by these criteria. and a statute passed in the legitimate exercise of police power. This has special application to contracts regulating relations between capital and labor which are not merely contractual. furthermore. Republic Act No. which provides: No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion. it has granted said members undue advantages over their fellow workers. b. and that it must apply equally to each member of the class. that it must not be limited to existing conditions only. It cannot be gainsaid that said purpose is legitimate. The contract clause of the Constitution must. it leaves no rights or protection to labor organizations Section 8 of Article IV of the 1973 Constitution. asserted the Union. but on persons according to the circumstances surrounding them.Manila: enjoining the defendant Elizalde Rope Factory. and while said Act unduly protects certain religious sects. impairs the Union's rights as it deprives the union of dues from members who. as follows: . neither does the Act require affiliation with a religious sect that prohibits its members from joining a labor union as a condition or qualification for withdrawing from a labor union. Although the exemption may benefit those who are members of religious sects that prohibit their members from joining labor unions. ISSUE: WON RA 3350 introducing an amendment to — paragraph (4) subsection (a) of section 4 of Republic Act No. Republic Act No. therefore. that in spite of any closed shop agreement. and to promote the general welfare by preventing discrimination against those members of religious sects which prohibit their members from joining labor unions.. the interests of any particular religion. What then was the purpose sought to be achieved by Republic Act No. If. must yield to the common good. they refuse to sign up. or diminish. in violation of Article Ill. it being a discriminately legislation. therefore. and the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship. the government should not be precluded from pursuing valid objectives secular in character even if the incidental result would be favorable to a religion or sect. So. The Act does not require as a qualification. benefits and other emoluments that the union might secure from the employer NO. Republic Act No. the latter must. It follows that not all legislations. must have a secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion. which means that the classification should be based on substantial distinctions which make for real differences. they can do so. 3350 violates the constitutional provision regarding the promotion of social justice NO. Joining or withdrawing from a labor union requires a positive act." in that the laborer's exercise of his civil right to join associations for purposes not contrary to law has to be determined under the Act by his affiliation with a religious sect. 875. free exercise of religious profession or belief is superior to contract rights. said Act would violate religious freedom NO. Inc. if a worker has to sever his religious connection with a sect that prohibits membership in a labor organization in order to be able to join a labor organization. What the exception provides. be not only in harmony with. 3350 discriminatorily favors those religious sects which ban their members from joining labor unions. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. Legislation impairing the obligation of contracts can be sustained when it is enacted for the promotion of the general good of the people. inasmuch as by exempting from the operation of closed shop agreement the members of the "Iglesia ni Cristo". in order to avoid the constitutional prohibition against inequality. and that said Act. that it must be germane to the purpose of the law.e. the members of said religious sects prefer to sign up with the labor union. for while the Act exempts them from union obligation and liability. If in deference and fealty to their religious faith. "but such agreement shall not cover members of any religious sects which prohibit affiliation of their members in any such labor organization" is constitutional SUB-ISSUES & RULING: a. must be upheld by the courts. WON RA 3350 infringes on the fundamental right to form lawful associations when it "prohibits all the members of a given religious sect from joining any labor union if such sect prohibits affiliations of their members thereto" 5 .Republic Act No. are obnoxious to the constitutional prohibition as to impairment.. and when the means adopted to secure that end are reasonable. f. is that members of said religious sects cannot be compelled or coerced to join labor unions even when said unions have closed shop agreements with the employers. members of said religious sects cannot be refused employment or dismissed from their jobs on the sole ground that they are not members of the collective bargaining union. therefore. statutory and constitutional right to work. In case of conflict. c. violates the "equal protection of laws" clause of the Constitution. It is not. and. or condition. while the Union is obliged to comply with its collective bargaining agreement containing a "closed shop provision. shall forever be allowed. a religious objector is not required to do a positive act — to exercise the right to join or to resign from the union. woman and child should be affected alike by a statute." the Act relieves the employer from its reciprocal obligation of cooperating in the maintenance of union membership as a condition of employment. neither does the law prohibit them from joining. i. notwithstanding their religious beliefs. yield to the former. 3350. Sections 24 and 9 (d) and (e). in order to withstand the strictures of constitutional prohibition. WON Republic Act No. it nevertheless entitles them at the same time to the enjoyment of all concessions. WON RA 3350 unconstitutional for impairing the obligation of contracts in that. does not violate the constitutional provision on freedom of association. therefore. which have the effect of impairing a contract. of the community that infringement of religious freedom may be justified. but also in subordination to. the law does not coerce them to join. 3350. the reserved power of the state to safeguard the vital interests of the people. that conversely. It guarantees equality. d. deprives said members of their constitutional right to form or join lawful associations or organizations guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Republic Act No. under the Act. and thus becomes obnoxious to Article III. 3350. that every man. Section 1 (7) of the 1935 Constitution or Section 8 of Article IV of the 1987 Constitution. WON Republic Act No. confirming thereby their natural. for joining any lawful association membership in any particular religion or in any religious sect. within the scope of the reserved power of the state construed in harmony with the constitutional limitation of that power. and only to the smallest extent necessary to avoid the danger. although it incidentally destroys existing contract rights. 3350 promotes that welfare . All that is required of a valid classification is that it be reasonable. a requirement.. Both the end sought and the means adopted must be legitimate. It is only where unavoidably necessary to prevent an immediate and grave danger to the security and welfare NO. therefore. and contended that the Court had no jurisdiction over the case. and said labor contracts. in appropriate instances. Section 1 (6) of the 1935 Constitution NO. 3350? Its purpose was to insure freedom of belief and religion. 3350 only exempts members with such religious affiliation from the coverage of closed shop agreements. pursuant to Republic Act No. WON Republic Act No. they can do so. It has likewise been held that the statute. e. WON Republic Act No. Social justice is intended to promote the welfare of all the people. the fruits of which work are usually the only means whereby they can maintain their own life and the life of their dependents. Equality of operation of statutes does not mean indiscriminate operation on persons merely as such. for being impressed with public interest. under this Act. The "establishment clause" (of religion) does not ban regulation on conduct whose reason or effect merely happens to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions. and neither may the employer or labor union compel them to join. 3350. consequently.

for refusing. Religious freedom is a fundamental right which is entitled to the highest priority and the amplest protection among human rights. prohibiting respondents from further barring the petitioners from their classes. would not recall the expulsion orders of his predecessor. let it be noted that coerced unity and loyalty even to the country. that while they do not take part in the compulsory flag ceremony. SERGIO MARIBAO. Under the Administrative Code of 1987. singing the national anthem and reciting the patriotic pledge. It is not a question of degree or manner or cause. 95887 was filed by 25 students who were similarly expelled because Dr. to take part in the flag ceremony which includes playing or singing the Philippine national anthem. and FELINO BULANDUS vs. the expulsion of members of Jehovah's Witnesses from the schools where they are enrolled will violate their right as Philippine citizens. NOTES: 1. or pose "a grave and present danger of a serious evil to public safety. or its legal construction. The first is absolute as long as the belief is confined within the realm of thought. The petition in G. those whose religion prohibits membership in labor unions with those whose religion does not prohibit said membership. Biongcog. that the State has a right and a duty to prevent. love of country and admiration for national heroes. the Court issued a TRO and a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction commanding the respondents to immediately re-admit the petitioners to their respective classes until further orders from this Court. Republic Act No. Issue: Whether school children who are members of Jehovah's Witnesses may be expelled from school (both public and private). Nevertheless.insofar as it looks after the welfare of those who. According to Black. Petitioners stress. the DECS Regional Office in Cebu received complaints about teachers and pupils belonging to the Jehovah's Witnesses. impairs the contract. PABLO ARIZALA. In the Buenavista Elementary School. public morals. On November 27. members of labor organizations composed of rank-and-file employees. Forcing a small religious group. The second is subject to regulation where the belief is translated into external acts that affect the public welfare. 1265 and DECS Department Order No. In requiring school pupils to participate in the flag salute. for it insures security in their employment. for it exempts the latter from the compelling necessity of joining labor unions that have closed shop agreements and equalizes. The sole justification for a prior restraint or limitation on the exercise of religious freedom is the existence of a grave and present danger of a character both grave and imminent. The extent of the change is not material. The right to religious profession and worship has a two-fold aspect. through the iron hand of the law. without destroying contracts. Held: No. or its validity. Instead. . 8 which stipulated compulsory flag ceremonies in all educational institutions. place their right hand on their breast until the end of the song and recite the pledge of allegiance to the flag. . or continue to be. while the highest regard must be afforded their right to the free exercise of their religion.R. It is merely enforcing a non-discriminatory school regulation applicable to all alike. If they quietly stand at attention during the flag ceremony while their classmates and teachers salute the flag. like the Iglesia ni Cristo. LEONARDO JOVEN. freedom to believe and freedom to act on one's belief. Moreover. In the Daan Bantayan District. public morals. of other persons. or its discharge. for it involves the relationship of man to his Creator. ordered the "dropping from the rolls" of students who "opted to follow their religious belief which is against the Flag Salute Law" on the theory that "they forfeited their right to attend public schools. public health or any other legitimate public interest that the State has a right (and duty) to prevent. however. sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge as required by Republic Act No. because of their religious belief. They alleged for the nullity of the expulsion or dropping from the rolls of petitioners from their respective schools. The Act also advances the proper economic and social equilibrium between labor unions and employees who cannot join labor unions.R.. on account of their religious beliefs. the State thru the Secretary of Education is not imposing a religion or religious belief or a religious test on said students. Manuel F. The OSG commented on the defense of the expulsion orders and claimed that the flag salute was devoid of any religious significance and the State had compelling interests to expel the children. 3 and prescribed criminal sanctions for breach of the prohibition. A desirable end cannot be promoted by prohibited means. We are not persuaded that by exempting the Jehovah's Witnesses from saluting the flag. Ebralinag vs. Any teacher or student or pupil who refuses to join or participate in the flag ceremony may be dismissed after due investigation. Dames II. Social justice guarantees equality of opportunity. any statute which introduces a change into the express terms of the contract. but of encroaching in any respect on its obligation or dispensing with any part of its force. things took a turn for the worst. the District Supervisor. There is an impairment of the contract if either party is absolved by law from its performance. will hardly be conducive to love of country or respect for dully constituted authorities. or the remedy for its enforcement. However. who refused to sing the Philippine national anthem. THE COURT OF APPEALS FACTS: Under the Industrial Peace Act. the children were asked to sign an Agreement promising to sing the national anthem. The petitioning students filed on account of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondents in violating their due process and their right to education. No. Impairment has also been predicated on laws which. 1993 Facts: All the petitioners in these two cases were expelled from their classes by the public school authorities in Cebu for refusing to salute the flag. and enrolled in various public and private schools. The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu G. 95770 March 1. . public health or any other legitimate public interest. and this is precisely what Republic Act No. to participate in a ceremony that violates their religious beliefs. of a serious evil to public safety. we do not see how such conduct may possibly disturb the peace. however "bizarre" those beliefs may seem to others. 1 government-owned or controlled corporations had the duty to bargain collectively and were otherwise subject to the obligations and duties of employers in the private sector. he verbally caused the expulsion of some more children of Jehovah's Witnesses. equal opportunity for work. who are also component elements of society. salute the Philippine flag and recite the patriotic pledge. saluting the Philippine flag and reciting the patriotic pledge. derogate from substantial contractual rights. In determining whether any particular measure is for public advantage. Social justice also means the adoption by the Government of measures calculated to insure economic stability of all component elements of society. both religious and patriotic. the Act prevents their being deprived of work and of the means of livelihood. Expelling or banning the petitioners from Philippine schools will bring about the very situation that this Court had feared in Gerona. notwithstanding their failure to join a labor union having a closed shop agreement with the employer. Pablo Antopina. it is not necessary that the entire state be directly benefited — it is sufficient that a portion of the state be benefited thereby. They consider the flag as an image or idol representing the State. Jehovah's Witnesses admittedly teach their children not to salute the flag. to receive free education. in so far as opportunity to work is concerned. They also prayed for a TRO. Paraphrasing the warning cited by this Court in Non vs. They allege that the action of the local authorities in compelling the flag salute and pledge transcends constitutional limitations on the State's power and invades the sphere of the intellect and spirit which the Constitution protects against official control. under the 1987 Constitution. In 1989. Furthermore. cannot join labor unions. and recite the patriotic pledge for they believe that those are "acts of worship" or "religious devotion" which they "cannot conscientiously give . their right not to participate in the flag ceremony does not give them a right to disrupt such patriotic exercises. Cebu school officials resorted to a number of ways to persuade the children of Jehovah's Witnesses to obey the memorandum. to anyone or anything except God". assuming that such unity and loyalty can be attained through coercion. and compelling the respondent and all persons acting for him to admit and order the re-admission of petitioners to their respective schools. 3350 proposes to accomplish — it gives laborers. who succeeded Susana Cabahug as Division Superintendent of Schools. is not a goal that is constitutionally obtainable at the expense of religious liberty.” We hold that a similar exemption may be accorded to the Jehovah's Witnesses with regard to the observance of the flag ceremony out of respect for their religious beliefs. No. "this should not be taken to mean that school authorities are powerless to discipline them" if they should commit breaches of the peace by actions that offend the sensibilities. . irrespective of their religious scrupples. this religious group which admittedly comprises a "small portion of the school population" will shake up our part of the globe and suddenly produce a nation "untaught and uninculcated in and unimbued with reverence for the flag." 43 students were subsequently expelled after refusing to sing. 2 The Act also prohibited supervisors to become. they do not engage in "external acts" or behavior that would offend their countrymen who believe in expressing their love of country through the observance of the flag ceremony. 1990. sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge. patriotism. vis. 3350 insures economic stability to the members of a religious sect. 4 . through the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the inter-relations of the members of the community. for it is the duty of the State to "protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education . sing the national anthem. and to make such education accessible to all.

the Assistant Chief of the Accounting Division (sometimes Acting Chief in the absence of the Chief) and the Assistant Chief of the Field Service and Non-Life Insurance Division (and Acting Division Chief in the absence of the Chief). 1104. HON. Middle managers' principal responsibilities are to direct the activities that implement their organizations' policies and to balance the demands of their superiors with the capacities of their subordinates TOP MANAGERS: Composed of a comparatively small group of executives. by the Secretary of Labor and Employment. the case of Arizala and Maribao was still pending in the Court of Appeals and that of Joven and Bulandus. pressing for resolution its contention that the first sentence of Art. They pointed out further that the criminal sanction in the Industrial Peace Act no longer appeared in the Labor Code ISSUE: whether or not the petitioners' criminal liability for a violation of the Industrial Peace Act may be deemed to have been obliterated in virtue of subsequent legislation and the provisions of the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. associations. violates Art. Inc. The Labor Code (PD 442) allowed supervisors (if not managerial) to join rank-and-file unions. 1995 the union filed a petition for certification election on behalf of the route managers at Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines. in view of their supervisory positions. joining or assisting labor unions. and the Chief of the Billing Section of said Division. ineligible for union membership under the first sentence of Art. they say. RULING: 1) YES. 1973 pursuant to Proclamation No. Demands were made on all four of them to resign from the GSIS Employees Association. ISSUES: 1) whether or not the route managers at Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines. It establishes operating policies and guides the organization's interactions with its environment . which is the main reason for the prohibition. its petition was denied by the med-arbiter and. III. to form unions. 1974). but is explicitly allowed. may not be modified by collective bargaining because set by law. Consequently. vs. assist or join unions. the GSIS Employees Association. and provided that the terms and conditions of their employment were to be "governed by the Civil Service Law. RULING: YES. two (2) criminal cases for violation of the Industrial Peace Act were lodged against them in the City Court of Cebu: one involving Arizala and Maribao 6 and the other. on the ground that the route managers are managerial employees and.. after all. Which resulted to their conviction. Leonardo Joven and Felino Bulandus were. the right of self-organization and collective bargaining had been withdrawn by the Labor Code from government employees including those in government-owned and controlled corporations. III. is no longer of any consequence. that since the provisions of that constitution and of the Labor Code subsequently promulgated (eff. assist or form separate labor organizations of their own. insofar as it prohibits managerial employees from forming. The repeal of a penal law deprives the courts of jurisdiction to punish persons charged with a violation of the old penal law prior to its repeal UNITED PEPSI-COLA SUPERVISORY UNION (UPSU). therefore. � Managerial employees are not eligible to join. It is therefore immaterial. First-line managers direct operating employees only. so far as it declares managerial employees to be ineligible to form. The route managers cannot thus possibly be classified as mere supervisors because their work does not only involve. Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees but may join. LAGUESMA FACTS: Petitioner is a union of supervisory employees.chiefly for the reason that the terms and conditions of government employment. respectively. under present law. rules and regulations" and hence. top management is responsible for the overall management of the organization. the appellants ceased to fall within the coverage of the Industrial Peace Act and should thus no longer continue to be prosecuted and exposed to punishment for a violation thereof. their only power is to recommend. They are not mere functionaries with simple oversight functions but business administrators in their own right. assist or form any labor organization. respectively. �8 of the Constitution which provides: The right of the people. The agreement contained a "maintenance-of-membership" clause The petitioners occupied supervisory positions in the GSIS.Under the regime of said Industrial Peace Act that the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS. are managerial employees and 2) whether or not Art. 8 of the Constitution." Managers constitute three levels of a pyramid: FIRST-LINE MANAGERS: The lowest level in an organization at which individuals are responsible for the work of others is called first-line or first-level management. November 1. Inc. BIENVENIDO E. 245 of the Labor Code. They refused to do so. for short) became bound by a collective bargaining agreement executed between it and the labor organization representing the majority of its employees. contravenes Art. is not only not a crime. And under the Implementing Rules of RA 6715. supervisors who were members of existing labor organizations on the effectivity of said RA 6715 were explicitly authorized to "remain therein. including those employed in the public and private sectors. financial and marketing functions for the company. human resource." that the maintenance by supervisors of membership in a rank-and-file labor organization even after the enactment of a statute imposing a prohibition on such membership. Joven and Bulandus. Pablo Arizala and Sergio Maribao were. which provides: Ineligibility of managerial employees to join any labor organization. However. the Chief of the Accounting Division. or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged. supervisory employees are those who. whether supervisors are members of rank-and-file unions or not. 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 possibility of the employer's control of the members of the union thru supervisors thus rendering collective bargaining illusory. the route managers in this case more than merely recommend effective management action. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. It appears that on March 20. 245. pending decision in the City Court of Cebu. They argued that when the so called "1973 Constitution" took effect on January 17. all embraced in civil service. in the Central Visayas Regional Office of the GSIS. on appeal. Certainly. repealing the Industrial Peace Actplaced employees of all categories in government-owned or controlled corporations without distinction within the Civil Service. 245 of the Labor Code. all of which involve the laying down of operating policies for themselves and their teams The term "manager" generally refers to "anyone who is responsible for subordinates and other organizational resources. but goes far beyond. in the interest of the employer. the disappearance from the law of the prohibition on supervisors being members of labor organizations composed of employees under their supervision. no longer subject of collective bargaining. they do not supervise other managers MIDDLE MANAGERS: Middle managers direct the activities of other managers and sometimes also those of operating employees. right of supervisory employees." Thus. the simple direction or supervision of operating employees to accomplish objectives set by those above them. They perform operational. of the same Central Visayas Regional Office of the GSIS.

thus: The rationale for this inhibition has been stated to be. 32 Franklin Baker V. By implication. layoff. .In the Case. Inc. supervisory employees. no similar absolute constitutional right to organize for labor purposes should be deemed to have been granted to top-level and middle managers." It will be noted that in the performance of their duties and functions and in the exercise of their recommendatory powers. and the assailed resolution and orders are Affirmed. Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines. or discipline employees or to effectively recommend such managerial actions. 17. 1984 granting the petition and certification election among the office and technical employees of the Davao plant. Med-Arbiter Martinez issued an order dated Sept. �8 infringed by a ban against managerial employees forming a union. �8 is subject to the condition that its exercise should be for purposes "not contrary to law. The petitioner company appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations for the order be set aside and declare the 74 employees as managerial employees. Hon. Labor Held: A managerial employee is defined as one "who is vested with powers or prerogative to lay down and execute management policies and/or to hire. April 7. but requires the use of independent judgement. Trajano 157 SCRA 416 Facts: This is a petition for certiorari seeking the annulment of the order of Mediator-Arbiter Conchita Martinez of Ministry of Labor and Employment and Dir Cresencio Trajano of MOLE. So Ordered. 1986 Cresencio Trajano of Bureau of Labor Relations issued a resolution affirming the order of Med-Arbiter Conchita Martinez. III. 245. there is a rational basis for prohibiting managerial employees from forming or joining labor organizations In Bulletin Publishing Co. subject employees may only recommend. The test of "supervisory" or managerial status" depends on whether a person possesses authority to act in the interest of his employer in the matter specified in Art. fire or suspend as the case maybe rests upon the plant manager. because if these managerial employees would belong to or be affiliated with a Union. transfer. Petitioner company did not object on the election but manifested that out of 90 employees 74 are managerial employees and 2 are confidential employees. III. The Union can also become company-dominated with the presence of managerial employees in Union membership. the latter might not be assured of their loyalty to the Union in view of evident conflict of interests. v. thus having little freedom of action. 8 is evident in Lerum’s proposal. as the ultimate power to hire. suspend. the petition is dismissed.. assign. they do not participate in the policy making but given ready policies to execute and standard practice to observe. During the pendency of the appeal. The subject employees are not managerial employees because as borne by the records. and security guards to be constitutionally guaranteed. recall. decided on November 13. The Commission intended the absolute right to organize of government workers. The real intent of Art." In the case of Art. III. 61 employees involved filed a Motion to Withdraw the petition for certification election praying for their exclusion from the bargaining unit because they are managerial employees as they are performing managerial functions. It alleges that 90 employees in the Davao plant which is distinct from the regular rank and file employees is excluded from the coverage of the existing CBA. Premises Considered. entitled Worker's Alliance Trade Union (WATU) v. Inc. discharge. Augusto Sanchez. 1(m) of its Implementing Rules and whether such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature.. 212(k) of the Labor Code and Sec. Nor is the guarantee of organizational right in Art. this Court elaborated on this rationale. 2) NO. Issue: Whether or Not the subject employees are managerial employees under the purview of the Code and it's Implementing Rules. 1991. 1984 Franklin Baker Brotherhood Association filed a petition for certification election among the office and technical employees of the petitioner company with the Ministry of Labor and Employment Davao. The right guaranteed in Art. On April 23. the Secretary of Labor found: we find that only those employees occupying the position of route manager and accounting manager are managerial employees.