Facts:

This case revolves around the petition filed by Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corporation (PT&T), the petitioner, against Hon. Bienvenido E. Laguesma and the PT&T Supervisory Employees Union-APSOTEU (UNION, for brevity), the respondents. The events leading to this case began on October 22, 1990, when the UNION submitted a petition to the Industrial Relations Division of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), seeking a certification election for roughly 100 of PT&T's supervisory employees. On October 29, 1990, the UNION amended its petition, asserting that PT&T was an unorganized establishment without a certified bargaining agent. In response, PT&T sought to dismiss the petition on the grounds that its supervisory employees performed managerial functions, thus barring them from participating in the proposed bargaining unit as supervisory employees.

On December 11, 1990, the Med-Arbiter ruled in favor of the UNION, granting the petition for a

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• The case involves a petition for a certification election initiated by the PT&T Supervisory Employees Union-APSOTEU (hereafter, UNION) against the Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corporation (PT&T).
• The petition was filed by UNION before the Industrial Relations Division of the Department of Labor and Employment on 22 October 1990, seeking a certification election among the supervisory employees of PT&T.

Petition Filing and Amendments

• On 22 October 1990, UNION filed its petition, and on 29 October 1990, it amended the petition alleging that PT&T was an unorganized establishment employing approximately 100 supervisory employees.
• The union sought to certify these supervisory employees as a distinct bargaining unit separate from the rank-and-file, emphasizing their ineligibility to join the existing bargaining unit represented by a certified agent for rank-and-file employees.

Motion to Dismiss and Arguments Presented

• On 22 November 1990, PT&T moved to dismiss the petition on two grounds:
• The allegation that UNION members were performing managerial functions rather than supervisory ones.
• The existence of a certified bargaining unit among the rank-and-file employees which, according to petitioner, precluded the filing of a separate certification election.
• However, on 27 November 1990, UNION opposed the motion, arguing under the Labor Code that while supervisory employees may not join the rank-and-file union, they are entitled to form their own bargaining unit.
• PT&T further emphasized in its reply on 4 December 1990 that the functional test – that is, whether the employee is performing management functions – was determinative of whether they qualify as managerial or supervisory employees.

Administrative Proceedings and Evidence Submission

• On 11 December 1990, the Med-Arbiter granted UNION’s petition and ordered the conduct of a certification election among PT&T’s supervisory employees.
• PT&T appealed this decision to the Secretary of Labor and Employment and subsequently filed a supplemental appeal on 24 May 1991, attaching job descriptions, employment service records, and samples of memoranda and notices intended to demonstrate that supervisory employees performed managerial functions.
• Further evidence was submitted on 31 May 1991 to support its contention.
• The Acting Secretary of Labor and Employment, Nieves D. Confesor, on 11 June 1991, denied PT&T’s appeal for lack of merit without addressing the additional evidence, directing instead that such evidence be considered during the exclusion-inclusion proceedings.

Subsequent Developments

• On 15 August 1991, the Undersecretary of Labor and Employment, Bienvenido E. Laguesma, denied reconsideration of the resolution dismissing PT&T’s appeal.
• PT&T then filed the instant petition for certiorari and mandamus (with a prayer for a temporary restraining order), objecting to the Office’s failure to rule on the additional evidence which it claimed would establish that the supervisory employees were performing managerial functions.
• Ultimately, the petition was deemed devoid of merit based on the provisions of the Labor Code.

Issue:

Main Issue

• Whether a petition for certification election filed by supervisory employees of an unorganized establishment can be dismissed on the ground that these employees are actually performing managerial functions.

Subsidiary Issues

• Whether PT&T was justified in moving to dismiss the petition due to the alleged managerial functions performed by its supervisory employees.
• Whether the additional evidence submitted by PT&T sufficiently demonstrated that the supervisory employees were engaged in managerial activities.
• Whether the Med-Arbiter and subsequent administrative authorities abused their discretion in not considering the additional evidence during the certification election proceedings.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)