Title
University of the Philippines vs. Ferrer-Calleja
Case
G.R. No. 96189
Decision Date
Jul 14, 1992
UP contested the classification of professors as rank-and-file employees, seeking separate unions for academic and non-academic staff, leading the Supreme Court to affirm their rank-and-file status but mandate distinct bargaining units.
professors
separate bargaining unit
managerial employees
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 96189)

Petitioner

University of the Philippines, represented in BLR proceedings by its General Counsel (Demaree Raval), challenged Labor Relations Bureau rulings that included professors among rank‑and‑file employees and directed a certification election to cover all rank‑and‑file employees across UP’s autonomous campuses.

Respondents

Director Pura Ferrer‑Calleja of the Bureau of Labor Relations issued the challenged rulings. Registered labor organizations involved: ONAPUP (petitioned for certification election among non‑academic personnel) and All UP Workers’ Union (intervenor asserting coverage of both academic and non‑academic personnel).

Key Dates

  • March 2, 1990: ONAPUP filed petition for certification election.
  • March 22, 1990: Pre‑election conference; University initially stated no objection to election.
  • April 18, 1990: All UP Workers’ Union filed comment/intervention.
  • August 7, 1990: Director Calleja’s Order declaring the appropriate organizational unit to be the employer unit embracing all regular rank‑and‑file employees (teaching and non‑teaching).
  • October 30, 1990: Director Calleja’s Order holding professors (assistant, associate, full) to be rank‑and‑file employees qualified to vote in certification election.
  • November 20, 1990: Denial of University’s motion for reconsideration.
  • December 5, 1990: Temporary restraining order issued by the Supreme Court.
  • July 14, 1992: Decision (referenced for applicable constitutional basis).

Applicable Law (under the 1987 Constitution) and Rules

  • 1987 Philippine Constitution (operative constitutional framework for public sector labor relations in cases decided 1990 or later).
  • Executive Order No. 180 and its implementing rules (including Rule I, Section (1) definition of “high‑level employee” and Section 9 providing that the appropriate organizational unit shall be the employer unit consisting of rank‑and‑file employees unless circumstances otherwise require).
  • Rules Implementing EO No. 180 (including Rule IV, Section 1(d) recognizing state universities/colleges as possible organizational units).
  • University Charter (Act No. 1870, as amended) and University Code provisions on the University Council, Board of Regents powers, and composition and functions of Academic Personnel Committees (APCs).
  • Labor Code provisions on exclusive collective bargaining representation (Article 255, formerly Art. 256/Section 12 IPA).
  • Controlling jurisprudence involving supervisory/managerial classification and bargaining‑unit determination cited by the Court.

Factual and Procedural Background

ONAPUP, a registered labor organization claiming membership exceeding 33% of UP‑Diliman, Los Baños, Manila, and Visayas non‑academic personnel, petitioned for a certification election among non‑academic employees. ONAPUP initially proceeded in the Bureau of Labor Relations; the University and other unions participated in conferences. The University contended that academic and non‑academic employees have distinct interests and that certain positions (including professors at assistant level and above, and supervisory non‑academic staff) should be excluded from rank‑and‑file status because they are “high‑level” under EO 180. Director Calleja issued an August 7, 1990 ruling defining the appropriate unit as the employer unit including all rank‑and‑file teaching and non‑teaching personnel across UP. Following further submissions, Director Calleja issued an October 30, 1990 Order resolving whether professors are “high‑level employees” and declaring that assistant, associate and full professors are rank‑and‑file eligible to join unions and vote in certification elections; reconsideration was denied November 20, 1990.

Positions of the Parties

  • University: Argued that certain faculty (assistant professor and above) and supervisory non‑academic personnel exercise policy‑making, managerial, or highly confidential functions that render them “high‑level employees” ineligible for rank‑and‑file union membership; alternatively proposed separate unions for academic and non‑academic staff and, if uncertain, suggested ballots for challenged voters be sealed pending resolution.
  • ONAPUP: Did not oppose the University’s proposed classification of rank‑and‑file employees.
  • All UP Workers’ Union: Asserted membership covering both academic and non‑academic personnel and sought to unite all rank‑and‑file employees in one union, requesting clear definition of the organizational unit and opposing the University’s narrow approach.
  • Bureau Director: Initially ordered a single employer‑unit election for all rank‑and‑file teaching and non‑teaching employees; later, after submissions, held that professors are rank‑and‑file and eligible to vote.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether assistant, associate and full professors of UP are “high‑level employees” under Rule I, Section (1) of EO No. 180’s Implementing Guidelines, i.e., employees whose functions are normally considered policy‑determining, managerial, or highly confidential and consequently ineligible to join rank‑and‑file organizations.
  2. Whether academic employees and non‑academic employees should constitute a single collective bargaining unit or separate units, given differences in interests, duties, conditions, and rules.

Analysis — Classification of Professors: Managerial/Policy‑Determining Test

The Court affirmed Director Calleja’s conclusion that professors (assistant, associate, full) are not “high‑level” under EO 180. Key analytical points:

  • The defining indicia of a high‑level employee include the effective exercise of managerial powers (e.g., to effectively recommend managerial actions, to formulate/execute management policies, or to hire/transfer/dismiss/assign/discipline employees).
  • Functions performed through Academic Personnel Committees (departmental, college, and University Academic Personnel Board) are largely recommendatory and subject to evaluation, review, and final action by higher university authorities, notably the University Academic Personnel Board and ultimately the Board of Regents.
  • The University Academic Personnel Board (composed of deans, an assistant for academic affairs, and chief of personnel) formulates policies/rules/standards on selection, compensation, and promotion. Departmental and college APCs assist, review, and recommend but do not exercise final, independent managerial discretion.
  • Membership in APCs is not universal across all professors; membership may be by appointment, election, or other means, and committee sizes are designed to be deliberative and representative rather than conferring managerial status upon all faculty.
  • The University Council’s academic policy functions (courses of study, discipline, admission/graduation requirements, recommendations for degrees, limited disciplinary power over students) are academic in nature and subject to approval and oversight by the Board of Regents; such academic policy‑making does not equate to policy determination over employment terms and conditions which are typically subjects of collective bargaining (hiring, firing, remuneration, working hours, benefits).
  • Prior decisions (e.g., Franklin Baker Company) require that recommendatory powers be effective and exercised with independent judgment to qualify someone as managerial; where recommendations are subject to mandatory review and conformity with higher board guidelines, they lack the requisite independent managerial effect.
  • Because the professors’ committee roles and University Council functions do not amount to the kind of managerial, policy‑setting or confidential roles envisioned by EO 180 that would produce a conflict of interest with rank‑and‑file union membership, professors qualify as rank‑and‑file employees eligible to join unions and vote in certification elections.

Analysis — Appropriate Collective Bargaining Unit: Community or Mutuality of Interests Test

On the question of the appropriate bargaining unit, the Court applied the established “community or mutuality of interests” test developed in prior jurisprudence and influenced by American precedents. Principal points:

  • Statutory and executive guidance is sparse on precise criteria for unit definition: EO 180 indicates the employer unit consisting of rank‑and‑file employees is the default, except where circumstances otherwise require; the Labor Code similarly uses the term “appropriate” without detailed criteria.
  • Judicially developed factors include: will of employees; affinity and unity of employees’ interests (similarity of work, duties, compensation, and working conditions); prior collective bargaining history; employment status distinctions (temporary, casual, regular); and the relationship of proposed unit to employer’s organization.
  • Applying these factors, the Court found a clear dichotomy between academic personnel (professors, instructors, research/extension/professorial staff) and non‑academic personnel (janitors, messengers, typists, clerks, laboratory aides, nurses, carpenters, electricians, mechanics, plumbers, chauffeurs, groundskeepers, etc.). Differences include functions, responsibilities, working conditions, compensation, skills, and professional interests.
  • Because mutuality of interests between the academic and non‑academic groups is lacking and differences are substantial, treating them as a single bargaining unit would not best serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties
...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms