Case Digest (G.R. No. 141669)
Facts:
Coca‑Cola Femsa Philippines, Inc. (now Coca‑Cola Beverages Philippines, Inc.) v. Coca‑Cola Femsa Phils., MOP Manufacturing Unit Coordinators and Supervisors Union‑All Workers Alliance Trade Unions, G.R. No. 238633, November 17, 2021, the Supreme Court Second Division, Gaerlan, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner CCPI is a beverage manufacturer; Respondent CCFP‑MMUCSU‑AWATU (the Union) is a labor organization claiming to represent regular coordinators and supervisors at CCPI’s Misamis Oriental plant. On July 11, 2016 the Union filed a petition for certification election with DOLE Regional Office X asserting that the coordinators and supervisors comprised an appropriate, unorganized bargaining unit, that 26 of 39 employees were union members, and that no certification election had been held in the prior 12 months. The Regional Mediator‑Arbiter (MA) summoned the parties and granted CCPI leave to comment.
In its comment, CCPI contended the listed positions were managerial and thus ineligible to organize because they allegedly had authority to lay down and execute management policy and exercise disciplinary and hiring powers. The Union replied that under Article 271 of the Labor Code the employer had no right to oppose a certification election and that the employees only had recommendatory authority; it relied on a January 26, 2016 Secretary of Labor decision finding similarly situated Canlubang employees to be supervisory.
The MA granted the Union’s petition for certification election, taking administrative notice of the Canlubang decision and finding the contested positions supervisory rather than managerial; it emphasized that the employer is a mere bystander in certification election proceedings. CCPI filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals (docketed CA‑G.R. SP No. 07723‑MIN) assailing the MA’s August 18, 2016 Order. The certification election nevertheless proceeded on October 14, 2016 under CCPI’s protest; the DOLE Regional Election Officer denied CCPI’s protest, the Union won, and on January 10, 2017 the MA certified the Union as sole bargaining agent.
CCPI appealed the MA’s January 10, 2017 Order to the Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE); on August 7, 2017 the SOLE denied CCPI’s appeal. While its CA certiorari petition was pending, CCPI instituted a separate appeal in the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. SP No. 152835) contesting the SOLE’s resolution, but it failed to disclose that proceeding in its petition to the Supreme Court. In March 2017 CCPI implemented a reorganization that changed or abolished many of the contested positions and reassigned affected employees to newly named but largely equivalent positions.
The CA (21st Division, Badelles, J., ponente) dismissed CCPI’s certiorari petition, affirming the MA’s findings that the employees were supervisory: their job descriptions showed directing rank‑and‑file compliance with preexisting policies; they lacked the distinctive characteristics of managerial employees; they reported to hi...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did CCPI commit forum shopping and fail to comply with the certification requirement under Rule 45/Rule 42 by not disclosing the pendency of CA‑G.R. SP No. 152835?
- Were the employees sought to be represented by the Union managerial (ineligible) or supervisory (eligible) employees such that the MA’s and CA’s factual determinations constituted grave abuse of discretion?
- Did CCPI’s March 2017 reorganization abolishing or renaming positions render the...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)