G.R. No. 256053 - Miguel vs. Ogena

Petitioner Limcoma Labor Organization (LLO)-PLAC is a duly registered labor union with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), serving as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent (SEBA) for regular rank-and-file employees of the respondent, Limcoma Multi-Purpose Cooperative (Limcoma).
Supervisors, technical, confidential, and managerial employees, including the Board of Directors of Limcoma, were excluded from the bargaining unit during the dispute.

Voluntary Retire-Rehire (VRR) Program and Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA)

In July 2005, Limcoma implemented a VRR Program initially opposed by petitioner, which was settled via a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) dated July 29, 2005.
The MOA provided, among others, that affected employees would retire, receive severance pay and an Industrial Peace Bonus, be rehired immediately as new regular employees with benefits under the law, sick and vacation leave; profit sharing was increased from 15% to 18%; the petitioner remained SEBA although the then-prevailing CBA was mutually terminated, and a new CBA was to be negotiated in October 2005.
The first CBA, following the VRR Program, was implemented on April 1, 2006 and was renewed on July 4, 2011 for five years, effective April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2016, subject to reopening and renegotiation of wages and economic benefits.
Both CBAs included an identical profit sharing provision in Section 2, Article VIII, granting all regular employees eighteen percent (18%) of the cooperative’s net surplus based on basic salary.

During the 2014 wage reopening negotiations, petitioner discovered that Limcoma entered into a "Kasunduan sa Voluntary Retire-Rehire Program" (K-VRR) with supervisory, technical, and managerial employees, granting them the same eighteen percent (18%) profit sharing.
Petitioner alleged non-disclosure by respondent on how individual rank-and-file profit shares were computed and contended that the 18% profit share under the CBA should be exclusive to covered rank-and-file employees.
The wage negotiation deadlocked, leading to arbitration over the profit sharing issue.
The Department of Labor and Employment-accredited Voluntary Arbitrator (VA), Atty. Cenon Wesley P. Gacutan, ruled that the 18% profit sharing in the CBA applies exclusively to rank-and-file employees, excluding supervisors, confidential, and managerial employees. This decision was affirmed through a denied motion for reconsideration.

Limcoma filed a petition for review with the CA under Rule 65, contesting the VA decision.
On August 9, 2017, the CA reversed the VA ruling, interpreting the CBA provision to mean all regular employees, regardless of rank or position, were entitled to the 18% profit sharing share; it also ruled that certain cooperative expenses were deductible from the 18% profit share.
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA on May 16, 2018, prompting the present petition for review under Rule 45.

Whether the CA erred in ruling that supervisors, confidential, and managerial employees are entitled to profit sharing benefits under the rank-and-file employees' CBA.
Whether the CA misapprehended that the 18% profit sharing provided in the CBA was a management prerogative unilateral grant and aligned with a separate agreement entered into with non-covered employees.

Did the Court of Appeals commit grave error by ruling that supervisors, confidential, and managerial employees are covered by the profit sharing provision of the rank-and-file employees’ CBA?
Did the Court of Appeals err in treating the 18% profit sharing under the CBA as a unilateral management grant identical to that found in an alleged separate agreement with non-covered employees?