Case Digest (G.R. No. 101738)
Facts:
Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines v. Hon. Bienvenido E. Laguesma, G.R. No. 101738, April 12, 2000, Supreme Court Second Division, De Leon, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner is Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines (PICOP); respondents include Hon. Bienvenido E. Laguesma (then Undersecretary of Labor and Employment), the PICOP-Bislig Supervisory and Technical Staff Employees Union (PBSTSEU), and intervenors Federation of Free Workers (FFW) and Associated Labor Union (ALU). PICOP operates major paper and timber facilities in Tabon, Bislig, Surigao del Sur, with over 9,000 employees and about 944 supervisory and technical staff, of whom roughly 487 were PBSTSEU signatories.
On August 9, 1989 PBSTSEU filed a Petition for Certification Election to determine the exclusive bargaining agent for PICOP’s supervisory and technical staff. A Med-Arbiter (Arturo L. Gamolo) set a certification election (orders issued September 14, 1989). PICOP unsuccessfully sought delay to file comments and later appealed the Med-Arbiter’s order to the Secretary of Labor; the Secretary (Franklin M. Drilon) issued a Resolution on November 17, 1989 upholding the Med-Arbiter’s order with modification to include supervisory and staff in Cebu, Davao and Iligan City.
During the pre-election conference (January 18, 1990) PICOP objected to inclusion of certain section heads and supervisors on the voters’ list, asserting that a reorganization it implemented (decentralization dividing the company into four business groups with vice-presidents, division managers, department managers, and section/unit managers) converted those positions into managerial posts with hiring/firing authority and thus rendered them ineligible under Article 245 of the Labor Code. The parties filed position papers and evidence; Med-Arbiter Phibun D. Pura issued an Order on March 27, 1990 declaring the contested supervisors and section heads managerial and excluding them from the voters’ list.
PBSTSEU and ALU appealed the Med-Arbiter’s March 27, 1990 Order to the Office of the Secretary, DOLE. Public respondent Bienvenido E. Laguesma, acting as Undersecretary, issued an Order dated April 17, 1991 setting aside the Med-Arbiter’s Order and holding that the subject section heads and supervisors were supervisory employees eligible to vote; he denied PICOP’s motion for reconsideration in an August 7, 1991 Order. PICOP then filed the present petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court seeking ann...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did public respondent Undersecretary Laguesma commit grave abuse of discretion and deny due process by refusing PICOP’s request to present additional evidence concerning the implementation of its reorganization?
- Were the subject section heads and supervisors properly classified as managerial employees (thereby ineligible to vote) or as supervisory employees eligible to vote...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)