Title
Franklin Baker Co. of the Philippines vs. Trajano
Case
G.R. No. 75039
Decision Date
Jan 28, 1988
A union sought certification for office/technical employees; the company contested, claiming 76 were managerial. SC ruled they were not managerial, affirming their inclusion in the election.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 75039)

Background of the Case

On April 23, 1984, the Franklin Baker Brotherhood Association filed for a certification election with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) in Davao City to represent approximately 90 regular technical and office employees. The petitioner contended that 74 of these employees were managerial and should be excluded from the election. The proceedings involved hearings, memoranda filing, and culminated in an order by Mediator-Arbiter Conchita J. Martinez on September 17, 1984, to proceed with the certification election, which included the challenging individuals.

Issues Raised and Resolutions by Authorities

Petitioner appealed this order, seeking to declare the identified employees as managerial. The appeal was dismissed by Cresencio B. Trajano and therefore upheld the order for the election to proceed. Subsequent motions for reconsideration by the petitioner were denied, leading to the filing of a petition for certiorari in this Court.

Petitioner’s Assertions

The primary assertion by the petitioner is that the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations acted with grave abuse of discretion in determining that the 76 employees were not managerial. The petitioner highlighted the role of these employees in management functions, citing examples where they recommended hiring and disciplinary actions.

Discussion on Managerial Employee Definition

A managerial employee is defined under the Labor Code as one vested with authority to execute managerial policies and make significant recommendations concerning employment actions. The petitioner argued that the involved employees participated in policy formulation and execution but ultimately the power to make final employment decisions resides with higher management, thus not affirming their status as managerial.

Examination of Legal Precedents

The court evaluated the relevant jurisprudence, asserting that simply performing supervisory functions does not equate to being a managerial employee unless the authority exercised is independent and not subject to further approval from superiors. The case references highlight the importance of recognizing that many recommendations may not qualify as independent judgment if they are mainly subject to review by senior executives.

Court's Conclusion on Employee Classification

The Court affirmed the lower authority's decision that the employees in question do not fit the categorization of manage

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.