G.R. No. 88957 - Philips Industrial Development, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Petitioner Philips Industrial Development, Inc. (PIDI) is a domestic corporation engaged in manufacturing and marketing electronic products.
Private respondent Philips Employees Organization-FFW (PEO-FFW) is a registered labor union and the certified bargaining agent of all rank and file employees of PIDI.
Since 1971, PIDI and PEO-FFW entered into six (6) Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs).

First CBA (1971-1974) excluded supervisors under R.A. No. 875, confidential employees, security guards, temporary employees, and sales representatives from the bargaining unit.
Second to fifth CBAs (1975-1986) specifically excluded the sales force, confidential employees, heads of small units, managerial employees, temporary employees, and security personnel from the bargaining unit.
Confidential employees include division secretaries of light/telecom/data and consumer electronics, marketing managers, secretaries of corporate planning and business manager, fiscal and financial system manager, audit and EDP manager, and staff of General Management and Personnel Department.

The sixth CBA agreed that the issue of inclusion/exclusion of service engineers, sales personnel, and confidential employees would be submitted for arbitration.
PEO-FFW filed a petition for an order to select a voluntary arbitrator; failing to agree, the case was endorsed for compulsory arbitration.
Labor Arbiter Arthur Amansec ordered a referendum among service engineers and sales representatives to determine inclusion or exclusion in the bargaining unit. He declared confidential employees excluded.

PEO-FFW appealed; the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter and ruled that service engineers, sales force, division secretaries, all staff of General Management, Personnel and Industrial Relations Department, as well as secretaries of audit, EDP, and financial systems are included in the bargaining unit.
The NLRC based its ruling on provisions of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code and Article 245 of the Labor Code, stating all workers except managerial employees and security personnel are qualified to join the bargaining unit.
The NLRC disapproved the Labor Arbiter’s referendum, reasoning that employees cannot define the scope of the bargaining unit themselves and rejecting exclusion of confidential employees based on law.

PIDI filed the petition alleging grave abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction by the NLRC in including service engineers, sales representatives, and confidential employees in the bargaining unit.
The petitioner also alleged the NLRC's failure to apply the Globe Doctrine.
The Office of the Solicitor General supported the Labor Arbiter’s decision, arguing for exclusion of confidential employees and for the holding of a referendum for service engineers and sales representatives due to their different interests from rank and file employees.
Issues on the finality of the NLRC decision under Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. No. 6715, were raised and considered throughout the Court’s proceedings.

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in holding that service engineers, sales representatives, and confidential employees of PIDI are qualified to be included in the existing bargaining unit.

Whether the NLRC erred in not applying the Globe Doctrine regarding the determination of the proper bargaining unit for the service engineers and sales representatives.