G.R. No. L-75039. January 28, 1988.
Franklin Baker Company of the Philippines, petitioner, vs. Honorable Cresencio B. Trajano, Director of Bureau of Labor Relations, Franklin Baker Brotherhood Association (Technical and Office Employees)-Association of Trade Unions (ATU), respondents.

FACTS

Franklin Baker Brotherhood Association (ATU) filed a petition for a certification election among the office and technical employees of the petitioner company. The petitioner company did not object to the election itself but contended that out of the approximately ninety employees in the proposed bargaining unit, seventy-four were managerial employees (inspectors, foremen, and supervisors) and two were confidential employees. The company argued these individuals should be excluded from both the election and any resulting bargaining unit. The Med-Arbiter ordered the certification election to proceed, directing that the company’s latest payroll be used to determine the qualified voters, thereby implicitly including the contested employees.
The company appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), reiterating its claim that the seventy-four employees were managerial. During the appeal, sixty-one of these employees filed a motion to withdraw from the petition, asserting they performed managerial functions. The BLR Director, Cresencio B. Trajano, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Med-Arbiter’s order, ruling the employees were not managerial and could participate. The company’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the seventy-four inspectors, foremen, and supervisors are not managerial employees and may therefore be included in the certification election.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that factual findings of the Ministry of Labor and its agencies are accorded great respect and finality unless unsupported by substantial evidence or tainted by grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary exercise of judgment equivalent to a lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the BLR’s conclusion—that the employees were not managerial—lacked substantial evidentiary basis or was arrived at arbitrarily.
The Court clarified the legal definition of managerial employees under the Labor Code, noting they are those vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies, hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, discharge, assign, or discipline employees. The mere performance of supervisory functions does not automatically confer managerial status. The BLR’s evaluation of the employees’ actual duties, rather than their job titles, was within its expertise. Furthermore, the Court noted that even if classified as managerial, such employees could join a union of rank-and-file employees, though they could not form an exclusive union of their own. The assailed orders were affirmed.