G.R. No. 101730 June 17, 1993
PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA and PT & T SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES UNION-APSOTEU, respondents.

FACTS

On October 22, 1990, private respondent PT&T Supervisory Employees Union-APSOTEU (UNION), a legitimate labor organization, filed a petition for a certification election among the supervisory employees of petitioner Philippine Telegraph & Telephone Corporation (PT&T). The UNION amended its petition to allege that PT&T was an unorganized establishment with roughly 100 supervisory employees. PT&T moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that the UNION members were performing managerial functions and that a certified bargaining unit already existed for its rank-and-file employees. The Med-Arbiter granted the petition and ordered a certification election. PT&T appealed to the Secretary of Labor and Employment, submitting additional evidence such as job descriptions and employment records to support its claim that the employees were managerial. Acting Secretary Nieves D. Confesor dismissed the appeal, directing that the evidence be considered during exclusion-inclusion proceedings. Undersecretary Bienvenido E. Laguesma denied reconsideration. PT&T filed the instant petition for certiorari and mandamus, alleging grave abuse of discretion for failing to rule on the additional evidence.

ISSUE

Can a petition for certification election filed by supervisory employees of an unorganized establishment be dismissed on the ground that these employees are actually performing managerial functions?

RULING

No. The petition is devoid of merit. Under Article 257 of the Labor Code, in any establishment where there is no certified bargaining agent, a certification election shall automatically be conducted upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate labor organization. PT&T was an unorganized establishment vis-à-vis its supervisory employees, as they had no certified bargaining agent, and the existence of a certified bargaining agent for rank-and-file employees did not alter this status. The holding of a certification election in such a case is mandatory. Furthermore, an employer generally lacks the legal personality to question a certification election, as it is the sole concern of the workers. The proper recourse for PT&T was to question the inclusion of any allegedly disqualified employee during the exclusion-inclusion proceedings before the representation officer. The additional evidence submitted by PT&T failed to sufficiently show that the supervisory employees were performing managerial functions, as their authority was merely recommendatory and they were accountable to superior officers. The petition was denied.