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 Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines (PICOP) operates large paper and timber facilities in Tabon, Bislig, Surigao del Sur; among its workforce of over 9,000 were 944 supervisory and technical staff, some 487 of whom were members of respondent PICOP–Bislig Supervisory and Technical Staff Employees Union (PBSTSEU). On August 9, 1989 PBSTSEU filed a petition for a certification election to determine the bargaining agent for the supervisory and technical staff.
A Med-Arbiter (Arturo L. Gamolo) granted interventions by the Federation of Free Workers (FFW) and Associated Labor Union (ALU) and set a certification election (orders dated September 14 and September 17/21, 1989). PICOP appealed that med-arbiter order to the Secretary of Labor (Franklin M. Drilon), who by Resolution dated November 17, 1989 affirmed the med-arbiter’s order with a modification allowing certain remote supervisory units to participate.
Prior to the election, PICOP reorganized its management structure (decentralization) and re-titled section heads and supervisors as section managers and unit managers. At the pre-election conference (January 18, 1990) PICOP objected to inclusion in the voter list of certain section heads and supervisors it asserted had become managerial (and thus ineligible under Article 245 of the Labor Code). After submission of position papers and evidence on that point, Med-Arbiter Phibun D. Pura issued an Order dated March 27, 1990 holding that the disputed employees were managerial and should be excluded from the voter list.
PBSTSEU and ALU appealed the med-arbiter’s March 27, 1990 order to the Office of the Secretary, DOLE. Acting Undersecretary Bienvenido E. Laguesma (public respondent) reviewed the record and, by Order dated April 17, 1991, set aside the med-arbiter’s order and held the subject supervisors and section heads to be supervisory employees eligible to vote; his denial of PICOP’s motion for reconsideration followed in an Order dated August 7, 1991. PICOP then filed the present petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court seeking annulment of Laguesma’s Resolution/Order, alleging grave abuse of discretion in (1) refusing to allow PICOP to present additional evidence concerning the post‑appeal implementation of its reorganization, and (2) disregarding PICOP...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did public respondent Undersecretary Laguesma commit grave abuse of discretion (denial of due process) by refusing PICOP’s request to present additional evidence about its reorganization implemented after the case was appealed?
- Did public respondent commit grave abuse of discretion in reversing the med-arbiter’s finding of managerial status and instead holding the disputed supervisors and section heads to be sup...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)