Title
Philtranco Service Enterprises vs. Bureau of Labor Relations
Case
G.R. No. 85343
Decision Date
Jun 28, 1989
Philtranco employees sought separate union representation; Supreme Court ruled against fragmentation, upholding inclusion in existing bargaining unit to strengthen unionism.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 85343)

Background of the Case

On February 15, 1988, KASAMA KO filed a petition for a certification election with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), seeking to represent professional, technical, administrative, and confidential employees of Philtranco. They argued that these employees were excluded from previous elections held for rank-and-file workers and warranted a separate bargaining unit due to substantial differences in employment conditions. The petition included signatures from over 20% of the employees as required by law.

Interventions and Hearings

Subsequently, the National Mines and Allied Workers Union (NAMAWU-MIF) filed a motion to intervene, claiming to be the recognized bargaining agent for Philtranco workers. Following hearings conducted by Med-Arbiter Paterno Adap, a resolution was rendered on April 4, 1988, dismissing KASAMA KO's petition and directing that any eligible employees should be incorporated into the existing bargaining unit with NAMAWU-MIF.

BLR’s Reversal

KASAMA KO appealed the Med-Arbiter's resolution, and on September 5, 1988, the BLR issued a new order requiring the conduct of a certification election. Philtranco sought judicial relief, resulting in a temporary restraining order against the BLR's decision.

Legal Framework

The Labor Code recognizes two categories of employees: managerial and rank-and-file. Article 212(k) defines managerial employees, emphasizing their powers and responsibilities in management. The Omnibus Rules implementing the Labor Code prohibit managerial employees from forming or joining labor organizations.

Exclusion Justification

The Med-Arbiter's decision emphasized that KASAMA KO’s members, identified as professional, technical, administrative, and confidential employees discharging managerial functions, were correctly excluded from forming a union. The BLR upheld these exclusions on the grounds that their functions aligned with management, thus disqualifying them from being part of a labor organization.

Arguments Against Separate Union Formation

The respondents claimed substantial differences between office and field employees justified a separate union. However, the court found these differences exaggerated and emphasized a shared interest among all employees in Philtranco. A multitude of unions within the same company was discouraged as it could lead to fragmentation and weaken collective bargaining power.

Policy Against Fragmentation

The establ

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.