Title
San Miguel Corp. Supervisors and Exempt Union vs. Laguesma
Case
G.R. No. 110399
Decision Date
Aug 15, 1997
A union sought certification for supervisors and exempt employees across three San Miguel plants. The Supreme Court ruled they are not confidential employees and can form a single bargaining unit due to shared interests.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 110399)

Procedural Background

The union filed a certification‐election petition on October 5, 1990. On December 19, 1990, the Med‐Arbiter ordered a single election for all supervisory and exempt employees across the three plants. SMC appealed on January 18, 1991, challenging both the consolidation of plants into one unit and the inclusion of supervisory levels 3–4 and exempt employees. On July 23, 1991, Undersecretary Laguesma remanded the case for precise classification. Following reconsideration, separate elections by plant and by supervisory levels 1–4 and exempt categories were set on September 3, 1991. SMC sought further reconsideration on September 21, 1991. On March 11, 1993, the Undersecretary excluded supervisors 3–4 and exempt employees from the unit, citing Philips Industrial Development.

Confidential Employee Classification

The Court analyzed whether supervisory levels 3–4 and exempt employees qualify as “confidential employees,” who assist in labor‐relations policy and thus are barred from bargaining‐unit membership. Managerial employees under Article 245 are ineligible to join rank‐and‐file unions but may organize separately. Confidential status demands both (1) confidential assistance to labor‐relations policy‐makers and (2) routine access to labor‐relations information essential to job performance.

Analysis of Supervisors’ Functions and Information Access

The job functions of supervisory levels 3–4 and exempt employees—quality control, production decisions, sanitation oversight, material recall and rejection—concern internal business operations and technical data (product formulas, standards), not labor‐relations policy. Even incidental access to employer business secrets does not confer confidential status under labor‐relations doctrine. Therefore, these employees do not meet the cumulative criteria for exclusion.

Right to Collective Bargaining under the 1987 Constitution

Article XIII, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution guarantees all workers the right to self‐organization. Exclusion of confidential employees must be narrowly construed to avoid undue deprivation of collective‐bargaining rights. Since the questioned employees do not qualify as confidential, they retain the constitutional right to join or form a union and to participate in certification elections.

Appropriateness of a Single Bargaining Unit

An appropriate unit groups employees sharing substantial mutual interests in wages, hours, and working conditions. Supervisory leve

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.