Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. Vs. Ilocos Professional and Technical

Employers Union (IPTEU)G.R. No. 193798September 9, 2015PERALTA,
J.FACTS:
1.On July 9, 2007, Ilocos Professional and Technical Employees Union
(IPTEU) filed a verified Petitionfor certification election seeking to represent
a bargaining unit consisting of approximately twenty-two(22) rank-and-
file professional and technical employees of Coca-Cola Bottlers 
Philippines, Inc.(CCBPI) Ilocos Norte Plant.2.CCBPI prayed for the denial
and dismissal of the petition, arguing that the Sales Logistics
Coordinatorand Maintenance Foreman are supervisory employees, while the
eight (8) Financial Analysts, five (5)Quality Assurance Specialists, Maintenance
Manager Secretary, Trade Promotions and MerchandisingAssistant (TPMA),
Trade Asset Controller and Maintenance Coordinator (TACMC), Sales
InformationAnalyst (SIA), Sales Logistics Assistant, Product Supply Coordinator,
Buyer, Inventory Planner, andInventory Analyst are confidential employees;
hence, ineligible for inclusion as members of IPTEU.3.Convinced that the
union members are rank-and-file employees and not occupying
positions that aresupervisory or confidential in nature, Mediator-
Arbiter Florence Marie A. Gacad-Ulep grantedIPTEU’S petition.4 . I n
the Pre-election Conference, CCBPI and IPTEU mutually
a g r e e d t o   c o n d u c t   t h e c e r t i f i c a t i o n election on September 21, 2007. On
election day, only sixteen (16) of the twenty-two (22) employeesin the IPTEU
list voted. However, no votes were canvassed. CCBPI filed and
registered a Protestquestioning the conduct and mechanics of the election and
a Challenge to Votes on the ground that thevoters are supervisory
and confidential employees.5 . B y a g r e e m e n t , t h e p a r t i e s m e t f o r t h e
opening and counting of the challenged votes. CCBPI filed
a motion for inhibition, which the Mediator-Arbiter verbally denied on
the grounds that it was notverified and would cause undue delay on the
proceedings as there are no other Mediators-Arbiters inthe Region. The parties
were informed that their agreement to have the ballots opened could not bindthe
Mediator-Arbiter. Instead, they were directed to submit additional evidence that
would aid in theresolution of the challenged votes.6.The Mediator-Arbiter
denied CCBPI’s challenge to the 16 votes. She found that the voters
are rank-and-file employees holding positions that are not confidential in nature.
Consequently, the challengedvotes were opened and canvassed. After garnering
14 out of the 16 votes cast, IPTEU was proclaimedas the sole and exclusive
bargaining agent of the rank-and-file exempt workers in CCBPI Ilocos
NortePlant.7.CCBPI elevated the case to the SOLE arguing, among
others, that the Honorable public appellee erredin denying the
challenge to the sixteen (16) actual voters, and subsequently declaring
that privateappellee is the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-
file exempt employees.8 . T h e a p p e a l o f C C B P I w a s d e n i e d .   T h e
S O L E h e l d t h a t e v e n i f t h e 1 6 c h a l l e n g e d v o t e r s m a y h a v e access
to information which are confidential from the business standpoint, the exercise
of their right toself-organization could not be defeated because their common
functions do not show that there exist aconfidential relationship within the realm
of labor relations.9.CCBPI filed before the CA a petition for certiorari. It
reiterated, among others, that the sixteen (16)voters are not eligible for
Union membership because they are confidential employees
occupyingconfidential positions.10.The CA denied the petition. CCBPI
filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied; hence,this
petition.
ISSUE:
 Whether or not the 16 voters sought to be excluded from the
appropriate bargaining unit areconfidential employees