G.R. No. 238633 . November 17, 2021
COCA-COLA FEMSA PHILIPPINES, INC. (NOW COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PHILIPPINES, INC.), PETITIONER, VS. COCA-COLA FEMSA PHILS., MOP MANUFACTURING UNIT COORDINATORS AND SUPERVISORS UNION – ALL WORKERS ALLIANCE TRADE UNIONS (CCFP-MMUCSU-AWATU), RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Coca-Cola FEMSA Philippines, Inc. (CCPI) is a corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of non-alcoholic beverages. Coca-Cola FEMSA Phils., MOP Manufacturing Unit Coordinators and Supervisors Union-All Workers Alliance Trade Unions (the Union) is a legitimate labor organization representing the regular coordination and supervisory employees of CCPI’s Misamis Oriental plant. On July 11, 2016, the Union filed a petition for certification election, alleging that the regular coordinator and supervisor employees comprised an appropriate, unorganized bargaining unit, with 26 of its 39 members belonging to the Union, and that no certification election had been conducted in the unit for the past 12 months. CCPI opposed the petition, arguing that the employees in the bargaining unit (holding titles such as Line Production Supervisor, Production Process Coordinator, Maintenance Planning Coordinator, and others) were managerial employees with powers to lay down and execute management policies and to hire, transfer, suspend, layoff, recall, discharge, assign, or discipline employees, and thus ineligible to organize. The Union countered that under the Labor Code, CCPI had no right to oppose the certification election, and that similarly situated employees at CCPI’s Canlubang plant had been ruled to be supervisory employees by the Secretary of Labor and Employment. The Union asserted these employees only had recommendatory authority and reported to managerial employees. The Mediator-Arbiter (MA) granted the Union’s petition, taking administrative notice of the prior SOLE Decision involving CCPI’s Canlubang plant and finding that the employees were supervisory, not managerial, as they did not lay down and execute management policies but merely recommended managerial actions and reported to managers. The MA also noted CCPI’s lack of standing to oppose the election. A certification election was subsequently held on October 14, 2016, under CCPI’s protest, and the Union won. On January 10, 2017, the MA certified the Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent. CCPI filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing the MA’s initial order. The CA dismissed CCPI’s petition, sustaining the MA’s finding that the employees were supervisory, based on their job descriptions, their role in directing rank-and-file workers, their lack of managerial characteristics, their reporting structure to managers, and their recommendatory powers in disciplinary cases. The CA also noted CCPI had granted the right to organize to similar employees in other plants. CCPI moved for reconsideration, arguing its reorganization of the Misamis Oriental plant in March 2017, which abolished the Union members’ positions and changed their titles to “heads,” rendered the petition moot. The CA denied the motion, ruling the changes were mere nomenclature. CCPI elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

1. Whether the employees in the bargaining unit represented by the Union are supervisory employees eligible to organize, or managerial employees who are not.
2. Whether the petition for certification election was rendered moot and academic by the reorganization of CCPI’s Misamis Oriental plant manufacturing unit.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. On the first issue, the Court affirmed the findings of the MA and the CA that the employees in the bargaining unit are supervisory employees, not managerial employees. The Court examined the job descriptions of the employees (both pre- and post-reorganization) and found they lack the authority to lay down and execute management policies. Their functions primarily involve directing rank-and-file workers, ensuring compliance with established policies and procedures, and effectively recommending managerial actions, which requires the use of independent judgment as defined for supervisory employees under the Labor Code. They do not possess the power to hire, fire, transfer, suspend, layoff, recall, discharge, assign, or discipline employees independently; such powers are only recommendatory. Their reporting structure to higher-level managers further confirms their supervisory status. The Court also upheld the MA’s use of the prior SOLE Decision involving similarly situated CCPI employees as a precedent. On the second issue, the Court ruled that the reorganization did not render the certification election moot. The changes in job titles to “heads” were merely nominal and did not alter the fundamental, supervisory nature of the employees’ duties and responsibilities. The reorganization, implemented after the certification election was ordered and during the pendency of CCPI’s appeal, did not validly remove the employees’ right to self-organization. The certification election had already been conducted, and the Union was duly certified as the bargaining agent; thus, the issue was not moot. The Court also found no merit in CCPI’s forum shopping allegation, as the other case cited by the Union involved a separate appeal of a different order (the certification of the Union as bargaining agent) and was not disclosed because it was not related to the specific orders assailed in the present petition.