G.R. No. 105223 September 27, 1993
PHILIPPINE APPLIANCE CORPORATION (PHILACOR), petitioner, vs. THE HON. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, in his capacity as Undersecretary of Labor & Employment, GENUINE LABOR ORGANIZATION OF WORKERS IN HOTEL, RESTAURANT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES (GLOWHRAIN) and THE HONORABLE BERNARDINO B. JULVE in his capacity as DIRECTOR IV, DOLE REGIONAL OFFICE, NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION (NCR), respondents.

FACTS

On November 21, 1990, respondent GLOWHRAIN filed a petition for certification election among the supervisory employees of petitioner PHILACOR. Petitioner opposed the petition, claiming the employees sought to be represented were managerial employees, not supervisory, and that its true supervisory employees (foremen and linemen) were already members of the rank-and-file union. The Med-Arbiter ordered a certification election. Petitioner submitted two lists: one of employees designated as supervisors (Annex “1”) and another of foremen and linemen it deemed as genuine supervisors (Annex “1-A”). Petitioner filed a “Motion to Exclude” the employees in Annex “1”, alleging they were managerial. The Med-Arbiter issued an order allowing the employees listed in Annex “1” and some from Annex “1-A” to vote. Petitioner appealed to the Office of the Secretary of Labor, which initially denied the appeal. Upon petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, which included for the first time job descriptions for Production Supervisor, Superintendent (Production), and Manager (Production), the Secretary modified its resolution, finding these three positions to be managerial. Respondent GLOWHRAIN filed a motion for reconsideration. Respondent Undersecretary Laguesma granted GLOWHRAIN’s motion, set aside the modified order, and reinstated the original affirmation of the Med-Arbiter’s order, finding the belatedly submitted job descriptions to be irregular and not reflective of actual functions. Petitioner filed this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioning employees are supervisory employees eligible to form a supervisory union.

RULING

Yes. The petitioning employees are supervisory employees. The Court affirmed the Order dated March 30, 1992 of respondent Undersecretary of Labor and Employment. The nature of an employee’s functions, not their job titles, determines their status. The evidence showed that the petitioning employees’ powers (e.g., to recommend hiring, discipline, or transfer) were merely recommendatory. The ultimate authority to hire rested with the Manager of Personnel Administration, disciplinary investigations were conducted by the Corporate Legal Service with penalties imposed by the Assistant Vice-President, and assignment rotations were executed per the Plant Manager’s schedule. The belatedly submitted job descriptions were considered an afterthought and not issued in the regular course of business. Citing Pagkakaisa ng mga Manggagawa sa Triumph International v. Ferrer-Calleja, the Court held that job titles are not determinative; it is the actual functions performed that govern. Since the petitioning employees did not lay down or execute management policies and their powers were recommendatory, they remained supervisors eligible for certification election. The Temporary Restraining Order was lifted.