G.R. No. L-12336; November 28, 1959
KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, petitioner, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

On March 7, 1955, the Kapisanan ng Mga Manggagawa sa Manila Railroad Company (petitioner union) filed a petition in the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) under Section 12 of Republic Act No. 875 , seeking certification as the exclusive collective bargaining representative for the employees and workers of the Manila Railroad Company or, alternatively, an order for a certification election. The petition alleged the existence of eight labor organizations in the company and the absence of a certification or election within the preceding twelve months. The Manila Railroad Labor Federation (respondent Federation) opposed the petition, claiming it was the appropriate bargaining unit and that the petitioner union’s president, Vicente K. Olazo, was a supervisor ineligible for union membership. The Manila Railroad Company also opposed, asserting that many employees were supervisors ineligible to join or vote in such an election and that a certification election was necessary. The petitioner union later replied, denying that Olazo’s position was supervisory and stating it had severed ties with the Federation. After a hearing, the CIR, on September 29, 1956, rendered a decision certifying three separate bargaining units. In the same decision, the CIR held that Vicente K. Olazo, holding the position of assistant electrical and signal superintendent, was a supervisor and therefore ineligible for membership in the petitioner union. The petitioner union filed a motion for reconsideration, specifically contesting only the finding that Olazo was a supervisor. The CIR en banc denied this motion on January 16, 1957. The petitioner union appealed, limiting its appeal to the case of Vicente K. Olazo.

ISSUE

Whether Vicente K. Olazo, as assistant electrical and signal superintendent of the Manila Railroad Company, is a “supervisor” within the meaning of Section 2(k) of Republic Act No. 875 , thereby making him ineligible for membership in the petitioner union.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations, holding that Vicente K. Olazo is a supervisor. The Court relied on the CIR’s factual findings, which were based on testimony and evidence presented. The CIR found that despite a company memorandum affecting supervision over some field personnel (linemen and linemen supervisors), Olazo still exercised supervision over signal men, electricians, and electrical supervisors, and his own written statement indicated he had supervision over “linemen supervisors and their men.” The CIR concluded that Olazo possessed authority that required the use of independent judgment, fitting the statutory definition of a supervisor under Section 2(k) of Republic Act No. 875 . The Supreme Court, after a careful study, found no reason to disturb these factual findings and the conclusion drawn therefrom. Consequently, as a supervisor, Olazo was ineligible for membership in a labor organization of employees under his supervision, pursuant to Section 3 of the same Act. The appealed part of the judgment was affirmed.