G.R. No. 161933 . April 22, 2008.
Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union (SCBEU-NUBE), petitioner, vs. Standard Chartered Bank and Annemarie Durbin, in her capacity as Chief Executive Officer, Philippines, Standard Chartered Bank, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union (SCBEU-NUBE) and respondent Standard Chartered Bank reached a deadlock in negotiating a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The Secretary of Labor and Employment assumed jurisdiction and issued an Order directing the parties to execute a CBA. The Order maintained the existing list of employees excluded from the bargaining unit, which included Chief Cashiers, Assistant Cashiers, Telex Department personnel, and one HR staff, among others. It also ruled that an employee serving in an acting capacity would only receive additional remuneration after one month, rejecting the union’s proposal for a one-week threshold. The union’s motions for reconsideration were denied.
The union filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Secretary’s Orders. The union then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari. Although the execution of the subsequent 2003-2005 CBA rendered the specific case moot, the Supreme Court opted to resolve the issues due to their capability of repetition yet evading review.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Secretary’s decision to maintain the previous scope of exclusions from the bargaining unit; and (2) whether it erred in upholding the one-month threshold for granting additional pay to employees in an acting capacity.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and sustained the Court of Appeals. On the first issue, the Court held that the determination of whether employees like Chief Cashiers and Telex personnel are confidential employees is a question of fact. In a Rule 45 petition, only questions of law are reviewable. The factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the DOLE, when supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and finality. The union failed to present evidence to controvert the Secretary’s finding that these employees, by reason of their access to sensitive financial information and labor relations materials, qualified as confidential employees properly excluded from the rank-and-file bargaining unit.
On the second issue, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the Secretary’s ruling setting the acting capacity remuneration threshold at one month. The Secretary balanced management’s prerogative to assign personnel with the need to adequately compensate employees for prolonged temporary duties. This exercise of discretion was reasonable and supported by evidence. The Court reiterated that it is not its function to re-evaluate the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the administrative agency on factual matters, absent any showing of capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment.