Case Digest (G.R. No. L-26736)
Facts:
Filoil Refinery Corporation v. Filoil Supervisory & Confidential Employees Association and Court of Industrial Relations, G.R. No. L-26736. August 18, 1972, the Supreme Court En Banc, Teehankee, J., writing for the Court.
The petitioner, Filoil Refinery Corporation, employed supervisory, confidential, technical and rank-and-file personnel at its Rosario, Cavite refinery. The respondent, Filoil Supervisory & Confidential Employees Association, was a labor organization duly registered with the Department of Labor composed exclusively of the corporation’s supervisory, technical and confidential employees. A separate rank-and-file union, the Filoil Employees & Workers Association (FEWA), already had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the company that expressly excluded supervisory and confidential employees.
On February 18, 1965 the respondent association petitioned the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) for certification as sole and exclusive bargaining agent for the refinery’s supervisory and confidential employees. Petitioner moved to dismiss for lack of cause of action and lack of jurisdiction, contending supervisors were part of management and thus not “employees” under Republic Act No. 875 (Industrial Peace Act) and could not bargain collectively (although they might form an organization). By order dated May 26, 1965 the CIR denied the motion to dismiss, holding that section 3 of RA 875 allowed supervisors to form separate organizations and that section 24 granted the right to collective bargaining; the CIR rejected petitioner’s contention that supervisors were barred from bargaining or that confidential employees could not be included with supervisors.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CIR en banc by resolution dated September 7, 1965; petitioner did not appeal that resolution. The parties then stipulated, inter alia, that the respondent association had forty-seven members among supervisory, technical and confidential employees and that those members were being checked off for union dues. Petitioner contested the appropriate bargaining unit and proposed dividing the 47 members into five separate units. After receiving evidence the CIR, by order of July 23, 1966, excluded certain executive personnel who handled supervision or personnel matters and rejected petitioner’s persistent objection to including confidential employees in the supervisors’ unit, finding the confidential employees few in number and sharing an “identity of interest” with supervisors; the CIR certified the respondent association as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for the appropriate unit. The CIR en banc dismissed reconsideration on September 15, 1966; Judge Salvador concurred with the right to organize but dissented on the po...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does petitioner’s failure to appeal the CIR en banc resolution of September 7, 1965 preclude its present challenge to the supervisors’ right to organize and bargain collectively?
- Are supervisors “employees” under Republic Act No. 875 entitled to form labor organizations and to bargain collectively with their employer?
- May confidential employees be included with supervisors in a single bargaining unit given their s...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)