G.R. No. 96189 - University of the Philippines vs. Ferrer-Calleja

Case Summary (G.R. No. 96189)

Factual Background

On March 2, 1990 a registered union, the Organization of Non‑Academic Personnel of UP (ONAPUP), petitioned the Bureau of Labor Relations for a certification election among non‑academic personnel, claiming a membership of 3,236 of 9,617 non‑academic employees. At the Bureau conference of March 22, 1990 the University signified no objection to an election. The All UP Workers' Union intervened by comment on April 18, 1990, asserting membership among both academic and non‑academic personnel and urging a unified bargaining unit. The University, through its General Counsel, proposed two unions, separating academic from non‑academic or administrative personnel, on the ground of differing interests, conditions and governing rules.

Proceedings in the Bureau of Labor Relations

Director Calleja initially ruled on August 7, 1990 that the appropriate organizational unit "should embrace all the regular rank‑and‑file employees, teaching and non‑teaching, of the University of the Philippines, including all its branches," citing Section 9 of Executive Order No. 180 and Rule IV, Section 1(d) of the implementing rules. At subsequent conferences the University sought clarification of the term "rank‑and‑file employees" and moved to exclude supervisors among non‑academic personnel and teaching staff holding the rank of Assistant Professor or higher. The University grounded its claim on Section 3 of Executive Order No. 180, which excludes "high‑level employees" whose functions are policy‑making, managerial, or highly confidential.

The Parties' Contentions

The University contended that professors, associate professors and assistant professors wield policy‑determining and managerial powers through the University Council and academic personnel committees and therefore qualify as high‑level employees excluded from rank‑and‑file status. The University further argued that non‑academic supervisors and academic personnel above the instructor rank should be omitted from the non‑academic bargaining unit. The All UP Workers' Union urged a single bargaining unit embracing academic and non‑academic rank‑and‑file employees. ONAPUP did not oppose the University's proposed classification of rank‑and‑file employees. The Solicitor General appeared and "manifested that he is not opposing the petition."

Director Calleja's Orders and Reasoning

By Order of October 30, 1990 Director Calleja resolved the narrow question whether professors are high‑level employees under the implementing guideline definition found in Rule I, Section (1). She adjudged professors to be rank‑and‑file employees qualified to join unions and to vote in certification elections. She reasoned that the managerial and policy functions recognized in the University Code pertained to academic matters and were not the type of managerial, executive or organization policies related to employment terms that give rise to conflicts of interest in collective bargaining. Her earlier Order of August 7, 1990 had directed an election among both teaching and non‑teaching rank‑and‑file employees; she subsequently denied reconsideration of the October 30 Order by Order dated November 20, 1990.

Issues Presented to the Court

The Court identified two discrete issues: first, whether professors, associate professors and assistant professors are "high‑level employees" within the meaning of Executive Order No. 180 and its implementing rules; second, whether academic employees should form a collective bargaining unit distinct from non‑academic employees, given the asserted dichotomy of interests, duties and conditions between the two groups.

Supreme Court's Analysis on High‑Level Employee Status

The Court agreed with Director Calleja and held that the challenged professors are not high‑level employees for purposes of EO 180. The Court examined the University’s regulatory framework governing academic personnel committees and the University Council as embodied in the University Code and related resolutions. Departmental and college academic personnel committees exercise primarily recommendatory functions concerning recruitment, evaluation, tenure and promotion, and they operate under general guidelines formulated by the University Academic Personnel Board. The University Academic Personnel Board, composed of deans and other administrators, formulates policies and standards, but recommendations at the departmental and college levels are subject to review and final action by the Board of Regents under the University charter (Act No. 1870), including Section 6(e) which vests appointment and compensation powers in the Board. The Court applied its precedents, including Franklin Baker Company of the Philippines v. Trajano and National Merchandising Corp. v. Court of Industrial Relations, to state the settled rule that recommendatory powers qualify a person as supervisory or managerial only if those powers are effective and require the exercise of independent judgment. The Court found that the recommendatory powers of academic committees are neither sufficiently effective nor independent, and it likened those roles to the rank‑and‑file chiefs of divisions and sections in National Waterworks & Sewerage Authority v. NWSA Consolidated Unions. The Court further held that the University Council’s policy‑determining functions relate to academic matters affecting students and academic programs, and not to employer decisions concerning hiring, firing, salaries, or terms and conditions of employment that are typical subjects of collective bargaining. Construed in the public sector unionism context of Executive Order No. 180, the phrase "policy‑determining" refers to policies that affect matters subject to collective bargaining between public sector management and labor; academic policymaking by professors did not produce the conflict of interest EO 180 sought to avoid.

Supreme Court's Analysis on Appropriate Bargaining Unit

The Court then addressed whether all rank‑and‑file employees of the University should constitute a single bargaining unit. The Court observed that Philippine law does not prescribe statutory criteria for defining an appropriate bargaining unit and that jurisprudence has relied on principles borrowed from American law. The Court reiterated the "community or mutuality of interests" test articulated in Democratic Labor Association v. Cebu Stevedoring Company, Inc. and applied in subsequent cases. Under that test the Court considered factors such as the will of the employees, affinity of interests, similarity of work, compensation and working conditions, prior bargaining history and the relationship of the proposed unit to the employer’s organization. Applying these considerations, the Court found a marked dichotomy

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 96189)

Parties and Posture

University of the Philippines filed a petition for certiorari seeking nullification of administrative orders issued by the Bureau of Labor Relations Director.
Hon. Pura Ferrer-Calleja, Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, Department of Labor and Employment, issued the challenged orders.
All UP Workers' Union, represented by Rosario del Rosario, intervened in the BLR proceeding and opposed the University on the scope of the bargaining unit.
Organization of Non-Academic Personnel of UP (ONAPUP) initiated BLR Docket No. BLR No. 3-08-90 by petitioning for a certification election among non-academic employees.
The Solicitor General manifested that he was not opposing the petition filed by the University.
The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order on December 5, 1990, and thereafter resolved the merits of the petition.

Key Facts

ONAPUP claimed membership of 3,236 out of 9,617 non-academic personnel and sought a certification election among non-academic employees across UP campuses.
All UP Workers' Union filed a comment asserting membership among both academic and non-academic personnel and sought inclusion of both groups in a single bargaining unit.
The University, through its General Counsel, advocated for two separate unions, one for academic and one for non-academic personnel, citing divergent interests and rules.
Director Calleja issued an Order dated August 7, 1990 declaring the employer unit should embrace all regular rank-and-file employees, teaching and non-teaching.
Director Calleja later issued an Order dated October 30, 1990 holding that professors, associate professors and assistant professors are rank-and-file employees qualified to join unions and vote in certification elections.
The University moved for reconsideration and sought exclusion of supervisors and teaching staff from Assistant Professor upward; reconsideration was denied on November 20, 1990.

Issues Presented

Whether professors, associate professors and assistant professors are high-level employees under the Implementing Guidelines of Executive Order No. 180 and thus ineligible to join rank-and-file organizations.
Whether academic employees should comprise a collective bargaining unit distinct from non-academic employees given alleged dichotomy of interests, conditions and rules.

Petitioner Contentions

University of the Philippines contended that many professors exercise managerial, policy-determining or confidential functions that render them high-level employees excluded from rank-and-file status under E.O. 180, Sec. 3.
The University argued that membership in the University Council and participation in appointment, tenure and program creation vested professors with potent managerial powers affecting employment conditions.
The University asserted that recommendatory participation in Academic Personnel Committees effectively constituted the exercise of managerial authority and independent judgment.
The University urged that, at minimum, the ballots of challenged voters be sealed pending resolution if the election proceeded.

Respondent Director's Rationale

Director Pura Ferrer-Calleja concluded that the appropriate organizational unit was the employer unit consisting of rank-and-file employees unless circumstances required otherwise, citing E.O. 180, Sec. 9.
The Director defined high-level employee per Rule I, Section (1) of the Implementing Guidelines as one whose functions are policy-determining, managerial, or highly confidential and listed managerial powers including hiring, transfer and discipline.
The Director found that the policy-making powers of the University Council were limited to academic matters and were subject to review and approval by the Board of Regents.
The Director ruled that the recommendatory functions of departmental and college Academic Personnel Committees were subordinate and subject to uniform guidelines formulated by the University Academic Personnel Board.

Intervenor's Position

All UP Workers' Union opposed the University's proposal to exclude academic personnel and advocated that both academic and non-academic rank-and-file employees be organized in a single union.
The intervenor asserted that the organizational unit sh