G.R. No. 78623 - Triste vs. Leyte State College Board of Trustees

Petitioner: Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc., a land transportation company engaged in carrying passengers and freight.
Respondents:

The Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR).
The labor organization Kapisanan ng mga Kawani, Assistant, Manggagawa at Konpidensiyal sa Philtranco (KASAMA KO).

On February 15, 1988, KASAMA KO filed a petition for a certification election with the Department of Labor and Employment.
The petition alleged, among various points:

That professional, technical, administrative, and confidential employees of Philtranco should be represented for purposes of collective bargaining.
These employees had been expressly excluded from the previous certification election conducted only among rank-and-file employees (drivers, conductors, coach drivers, coach stewards, and mechanics).
The petition was supported by the requisite signatures as provided by law.
Prior certification elections had not been held for three years, with the last held on November 27, 1984.

On February 26, 1988, a hearing was ordered where the parties were required to submit their respective position papers, with KASAMA KO given an opportunity to reply.
On April 4, 1988, Med-Arbiter Paterno Adap issued a resolution:

The petition was dismissed.
It was directed that individual members eligible to join any labor organization should be included in the existing bargaining unit rather than forming a new one.
The decision also mandated that the parties devise a mechanism for implementing the resolution.

On September 5, 1988, the BLR reversed the Med-Arbiter’s resolution by ordering the conduct of a certification election among the regular rank-and-file professional, technical, administrative, and confidential employees, with the options being:

A motion for reconsideration filed by KASAMA KO was denied on October 10, 1988.
On November 7, 1988, a temporary restraining order (TRO) was issued by the Court against the enforcement of the BLR’s decision and order.

Managerial employees, who have the power to determine management policies and perform functions such as hiring, transferring, and disciplining.
Rank-and-file employees, which include all employees not vested with managerial powers.

Under Section 11 of Rule II, Book V of the Omnibus Rules implementing the Labor Code:

Supervisors who perform managerial functions cannot join or form union organizations.
Nonmanagerial supervisors may join the rank-and-file union.

The dispute also involves conflicting interpretations regarding whether professional, technical, administrative, and confidential employees should be classified as managerial (and thus excluded from union participation) or as part of the rank-and-file eligible to form their own bargaining unit, distinct from the existing unit represented by NAMAWU-MIF (National Mines and Allied Workers Union, -MIF).

Whether the formation of a separate bargaining unit for professional, technical, administrative, and confidential employees is justified despite the longstanding existence of a single, companywide bargaining unit encompassing all rank-and-file employees.

Does the alleged “substantial difference” in the terms and conditions of employment between office employees and field workers warrant establishing an independent union?
Is there a legal basis or compelling reason to allow a new certification election exclusive to a subgroup of employees?

Whether the professional, technical, administrative, and confidential employees performing managerial functions should be included in the unionization efforts, considering the statutory definition of “managerial employee” in the Labor Code.
How the existing legal framework and jurisprudence, including previous cases such as Bulletin Publishing Corp. v. Sanchez and Pantranco South Express, Inc. v. NAMAWU, guide the classification and union eligibility of these employees.

If the formation of another union leads to fragmentation, would it undermine the policy of having a unified bargaining unit for the benefit of sound labor-management relations?
Is there a risk of confusion, discord, and labor strife if multiple unions are permitted to represent distinct subsets of employees within the same company?