G.R. No. 75039 - Franklin Baker Co. of the Philippines vs. Trajano

On April 23, 1984, the private respondent, Franklin Baker Brotherhood Association-ATU, filed a petition for a certification election among the office and technical employees of Franklin Baker Company of the Philippines, Davao Plant, with the Ministry of Labor and Employment, Regional Office No. XI, Davao City.
The petition alleged that the company employed approximately 90 regular technical and office employees who were separate and distinct from the regular rank and file employees and were excluded under an existing Collective Bargaining Agreement.

The petitioner company did not oppose holding the certification election per se but contended that among the 90 employees, 74 (inspectors, foremen, and supervisors) along with 2 confidential employees should be excluded from the bargaining unit because they were managerial employees.
The petitioner argued that these employees performed managerial functions, such as participating in the formulation and execution of company policies and exercising powers that affected personnel decisions.

Hearings were conducted in the certification election case, and both parties filed their respective memoranda. Petitioner also submitted a reply to the private respondent’s memorandum.
On September 17, 1984, Med-Arbiter Conchita J. Martinez issued an order granting the petition and directing that a certification election be held within 20 days, specifying the procedures (including a pre-election conference, posting of notices, and use of the company’s latest payroll for determining eligible voters).

Relying on the order of the Med-Arbiter, the petitioner appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), seeking to set aside the said order and to issue a declaration that the 74 inspectors, foremen, and supervisors were managerial employees.
During the pendency of this appeal, 61 employees filed a motion to withdraw their petition for certification election, asking for their exclusion from the bargaining unit and a declaration of their managerial status based on their claim of performing managerial functions.

On April 7, 1986, BLR Director Cresencio B. Trajano issued a resolution affirming the Med-Arbiter’s order, dismissing the petitioner’s appeal as lacking merit, and directing that the certification election proceed without delay using the company’s latest payroll to list eligible voters.
The petitioner’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied on June 6, 1986 by the same BLR Director, who reaffirmed his earlier decision in toto.

The case was elevated to the Court where, on July 30, 1986, the Second Division required the respondents to file their comments. Public and private respondents complied with their respective submissions between August and September 1986.
Petitioner was given an opportunity to reply to the public respondent’s comment, which it did on September 18, 1986.
Later, on October 20, 1986, the Court directed the parties to file their respective memoranda, which were duly submitted in December 1986.
The public respondent adopted its earlier comment as its memorandum in its submission, all forming part of the comprehensive record.

At the heart of the controversy is the petitioner’s assignment of error, alleging that the public respondent (and by extension, the BLR Director) abused their discretion by ruling that the 76 employees in contention were not managerial employees, thereby mandating their inclusion in the certification election.
The petitioner raised two specific questions:

Whether the subject employees qualify as managerial employees under the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules.
Whether the BLR Director acted with grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Med-Arbiter’s order.

Whether or not the subject employees (inspectors, foremen, supervisors, and similar positions) qualify as managerial employees under the provisions of the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules.
Whether the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations acted with grave abuse of discretion, amounting to a lack of jurisdiction, in affirming the Med-Arbiter’s order, which included the 76 employees in the certification election.