141. Philtranco Service Enterprises vs.

BLR
G.R. No. 85343, June 28, 1989
Cajipo, Judy Queen N.

FACTS:

Petitioner Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. is a land transportation company engaged in the
business of carrying passengers and freight. The company employees included field workers
consisting of drivers, conductors, coach drivers, coach stewards and mechanics and office
employees like clerks, cashiers, programmers, telephone operators, etc.

Kapisanan ng mga Kawani, Assistant, Manggagawa at Konpidensyal sa Philtranco (KASAMA

KO), a registered labor organization filed a petition for certification election with the Department
of Labor and Employment, desiring to represent all professional, technical, administrative, and
confidential employees personnel of respondent at its establishments in Luzon, Visayas and
Mindanao for purposes of collective bargaining for the reason that the aforementioned
employees were always expressly excluded from participating in the certification election
conducted among the rank and file employees (drivers, conductors, coach drivers, coach
stewards, and mechanics) of respondent and are excluded from the bargaining unit covered by
the CBA between respondent and its rank and file employees. In addition, there exist substantial
differences in the terms and conditions of employment between the above-mentioned
employees, hence, the former are covered by another appropriate bargaining unit which is
separate and distinct from that of the rank and file employees of respondent.

National Mines and Allied Workers Union (NAMAWU-MIF) filed a motion for intervention
alleging that it is the bargaining agent of the workers at Philtranco and as such it has a
substantial interest in the outcome of the petition.

Arbiter Paterno Adap called the parties to a hearing. Philtranco and NAMAWU were ordered to
submit their respective position papers and KASAMA KO was given the opportunity to submit a
reply. A resolution was rendered dismissing the petition. KASAMA KO appealed to the Bureau
of Labor Relations (BLR). However, the BLR reversed the resolution of the Med-Arbiter. A
motion for reconsideration was filed but was denied.

ISSUE:

WON professional, technical, administrative and confidential employees/personnel of a

company may join a labor organization. (NO)

RULING:

The Court ruled that the aforementioned employees may not join a labor organization. Section
11 of Rule II, Book V of the Omnibus Rules implementing the Labor Code did away with existing
supervisors' unions classifying the members either as managerial or rank and file employees
depending on the work they perform. If they discharge managerial functions, supervisors are
prohibited from forming or joining any labor organization. If they do not perform managerial
work, they may join the rank and file union and if none exists, they may form one such rank and
file organization. 
It, therefore, follows that the members of the KASAMA KO who are professional, technical,
administrative and confidential personnel of PHILTRANCO performing managerial functions are
not qualified to join, much less form a union. This rationalizes the exclusion of managers and
confidential employees exercising managerial functions from the ambit of the collective
bargaining unit. As correctly observed by Med-Arbiter.

The Court also ruled that there is no conflict. The employees of Philtranco have been appraised
and their functions evaluated. Managers by any name may not join the rank and file union. On
the other hand, those who are rank and file workers may join the existing bargaining unit instead
of organizing another bargaining unit and compelling the employer to deal with it.

The Court is constrained to disallow the formation of another union. There is no dispute that
there exists a labor union in the company, herein intervenor, the NAMAWU-MIF which is the
collective bargaining agent of the rank and file employees in PHILTRANCO.

Furthermore the SC sees no need for the formation of another union in PHILTRANCO. The
qualified members of the KASAMA KO may join the NAMAWU-MIF if they want to be union
members, and to be consistent with the one-union, one-company policy of the Department of
Labor and Employment, and the laws it enforces. There may be differences as to the nature of
their individual assignments but the distinctions are not enough to warrant the formation of
separate unions. The private respondent has not even shown that a separate bargaining unit
would be beneficial to the employees concerned. Office employees also belong to the rank and
file. There is an existing employer wide unit in the company represented by NAMAWU-MIF. The
fact that NAMAWU-MIF moved to intervene in the petition for certification election filed by
KASAMA KO negates the allegations that "substantial differences" exist between the employees
concerned. The SC finds a commonality of interest among them, therefore there are no
compelling reasons for the formation of another union.

The decision of the BLR is SET ASIDE. The resolution of the Med-Arbiter is REINSTATED.