036 & 134-San Miguel Foods, Inc. v. San Miguel Corp. Supervisors and Exempt Union G.R. No. 146206 August 1, 2011
036 & 134-San Miguel Foods, Inc. v. San Miguel Corp. Supervisors and Exempt Union G.R. No. 146206 August 1, 2011
036 & 134-San Miguel Foods, Inc. v. San Miguel Corp. Supervisors and Exempt Union G.R. No. 146206 August 1, 2011
146206 1 of 5
Spoiled 2 0 2
Segregated 41 35 76
Total Votes Cast 66 58 124
On the date of the election, September 30, 1998, petitioner filed the Omnibus Objections and Challenge to Voters,
questioning the eligibility to vote by some of its employees on the grounds that some employees do not belong to
the bargaining unit which respondent seeks to represent or that there is no existence of employer-employee
relationship with petitioner. Specifically, it argued that certain employees should not be allowed to vote as they are:
(1) confidential employees; (2) employees assigned to the live chicken operations, which are not covered by the
bargaining unit; (3) employees whose job grade is level 4, but are performing managerial work and scheduled to be
promoted; (4) employees who belong to the Barrio Ugong plant; (5) non-SMFI employees; and (6) employees who
are members of other unions.
On October 21, 1998, the Med-Arbiter issued an Order directing respondent to submit proof showing that the
employees in the submitted list are covered by the original petition for certification election and belong to the
bargaining unit it seeks to represent and, likewise, directing petitioner to substantiate the allegations contained in
its Omnibus Objections and Challenge to Voters.
In compliance thereto, respondent averred that (1) the bargaining unit contemplated in the original petition is the
Poultry Division of San Miguel Corporation, now known as San Miguel Foods, Inc.; (2) it covered the operations
in Calamba, Laguna, Cavite, and Batangas and its home base is either in Cabuyao, Laguna or San Fernando,
Pampanga; and (3) it submitted individual and separate declarations of the employees whose votes were challenged
in the election.
Adding the results to the number of votes canvassed during the September 30, 1998 certification election, the final
tally showed that: number of eligible voters 149; number of valid votes cast 121; number of spoiled ballots - 3;
total number of votes cast 124, with 118 (i.e., 46 + 72 = 118 ) "Yes" votes and 3 "No" votes.
The Med-Arbiter issued the Resolution dated February 17, 1999 directing the parties to appear before the Election
Officer of the Labor Relations Division on March 9, 1999, 10:00 a.m., for the opening of the segregated ballots.
Thereafter, on April 12, 1999, the segregated ballots were opened, showing that out of the 76 segregated
votes, 72 were cast for "Yes" and 3 for "No," with one "spoiled" ballot.
Based on the results, the Med-Arbiter issued the Order dated April 13, 1999, stating that since the "Yes" vote
received 97% of the valid votes cast, respondent is certified to be the exclusive bargaining agent of the supervisors
and exempt employees of petitioner's Magnolia Poultry Products Plants in Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis.
On appeal, the then Acting DOLE Undersecretary, in the Resolution dated July 30, 1999, in OS-A-2-70-91 (NCR-
OD-M-9010-017), affirmed the Order dated April 13, 1999, with modification that George C. Matias, Alma Maria
M. Lozano, Joannabel T. Delos Reyes, and Marilyn G. Pajaron be excluded from the bargaining unit which
respondent seeks to represent. She opined that the challenged voters should be excluded from the bargaining unit,
because Matias and Lozano are members of Magnolia Poultry Processing Plants Monthly Employees Union, while
Delos Reyes and Pajaron are employees of San Miguel Corporation, which is a separate and distinct entity from
petitioner.
Petitioners Partial Motion for Reconsideration dated August 14, 1999 was denied by the then Acting DOLE
SMFI v. SMC Supervisors and Exempt Union G.R. No. 146206 3 of 5
serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the law.
In National Association of Free Trade Unions v. Mainit Lumber Development Company Workers Union United
Lumber and General Workers of the Phils, the Court, taking into account the "community or mutuality of interests"
test, ordered the formation of a single bargaining unit consisting of the Sawmill Division in Butuan City and the
Logging Division in Zapanta Valley, Kitcharao, Agusan [Del] Norte of the Mainit Lumber Development Company.
It held that while the existence of a bargaining history is a factor that may be reckoned with in determining the
appropriate bargaining unit, the same is not decisive or conclusive. Other factors must be considered. The test of
grouping is community or mutuality of interest. This is so because the basic test of an asserted bargaining units
acceptability is whether or not it is fundamentally the combination which will best assure to all employees the
exercise of their collective bargaining rights. Certainly, there is a mutuality of interest among the employees of the
Sawmill Division and the Logging Division. Their functions mesh with one another. One group needs the other in
the same way that the company needs them both. There may be differences as to the nature of their individual
assignments, but the distinctions are not enough to warrant the formation of a separate bargaining unit.
Thus, applying the ruling to the present case, the Court affirms the finding of the CA that there should be only one
bargaining unit for
the employees in Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis of Magnolia Poultry Products Plant involved in "dressed"
chicken processing and Magnolia Poultry Farms engaged in "live" chicken operations. Certain factors, such as
specific line of work, working conditions, location of work, mode of compensation, and other relevant conditions
do not affect or impede their commonality of interest. Although they seem separate and distinct from each other,
the specific tasks of each division are actually interrelated and there exists mutuality of interests which warrants the
formation of a single bargaining unit.
Petitioner asserts that the CA erred in not excluding the position of Payroll Master in the definition of a
confidential employee and, thus, prays that the said position and all other positions with access to salary and
compensation data be excluded from the bargaining unit.
This argument must fail. Confidential employees are defined as those who (1) assist or act in a confidential
capacity, in regard (2) to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies in the field of
labor relations. The two criteria are cumulative, and both must be met if an employee is to be considered a
confidential employee - that is, the confidential relationship must exist between the employee and his supervisor,
and the supervisor must handle the prescribed responsibilities relating to labor relations. The exclusion from
bargaining units of employees who, in the normal course of their duties, become aware of management policies
relating to labor relations is a principal objective sought to be accomplished by the "confidential employee rule."
A confidential employee is one entrusted with confidence on delicate, or with the custody, handling or care and
protection of the employers property. Confidential employees, such as accounting personnel, should be excluded
from the bargaining unit, as their access to confidential information may become the source of undue advantage.
However, such fact does not apply to the position of Payroll Master and the whole gamut of employees who, as
perceived by petitioner, has access to salary and compensation data. The CA correctly held that the position of
Payroll Master does not involve dealing with confidential labor relations information in the course of the
performance of his functions. Since the nature of his work does not pertain to company rules and regulations and
confidential labor relations, it follows that he cannot be excluded from the subject bargaining unit.
SMFI v. SMC Supervisors and Exempt Union G.R. No. 146206 5 of 5
Corollarily, although Article 245 of the Labor Code limits the ineligibility to join, form and assist any labor
organization to managerial employees, jurisprudence has extended this prohibition to
confidential employees or those who by reason of their positions or nature of work are required to assist or act in a
fiduciary manner to managerial employees and, hence, are likewise privy to sensitive and highly confidential
records. Confidential employees are thus excluded from the rank-and-file bargaining unit. The rationale for their
separate category and disqualification to join any labor organization is similar to the inhibition for managerial
employees, because if allowed to be affiliated with a union, the latter might not be assured of their loyalty in view
of evident conflict of interests and the union can also become company-denominated with the presence of
managerial employees in the union membership. Having access to confidential information, confidential employees
may also become the source of undue advantage. Said employees may act as a spy or spies of either party to a
collective bargaining agreement.1avvphi1
In this regard, the CA correctly ruled that the positions of Human Resource Assistant and Personnel Assistant
belong to the category of confidential employees and, hence, are excluded from the bargaining unit, considering
their respective positions and job descriptions. As Human Resource Assistant, the scope of ones work necessarily
involves labor relations, recruitment and selection of employees, access to employees' personal files and
compensation package, and human resource management. As regards a Personnel Assistant, one's work includes
the recording of minutes for management during collective bargaining negotiations, assistance to management
during grievance meetings and administrative investigations, and securing legal advice for labor issues from the
petitioners team of lawyers, and implementation of company programs. Therefore, in the discharge of their
functions, both gain access to vital labor relations information which outrightly disqualifies them from union
membership.
The proceedings for certification election are quasi-judicial in nature and, therefore, decisions rendered in such
proceedings can attain finality. Applying the doctrine of res judicata, the issue in the
present case pertaining to the coverage of the employees who would constitute the bargaining unit is now a
foregone conclusion.
It bears stressing that a certification election is the sole concern of the workers; hence, an employer lacks the
personality to dispute the same. The general rule is that an employer has no standing to question the process of
certification election, since this is the sole concern of the workers. Law and policy demand that employers take a
strict, hands-off stance in certification elections. The bargaining representative of employees should be chosen free
from any extraneous influence of management. A labor bargaining representative, to be effective, must owe its
loyalty to the employees alone and to no other. The only exception is where the employer itself has to file the
petition pursuant to Article 258 of the Labor Code because of a request to bargain collectively.
With the foregoing disquisition, the Court writes finis to the issues raised so as to forestall future suits of similar
nature.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated April 28, 2000 and Resolution dated November 28,
2000 of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 55510, which affirmed with modification the Resolutions dated
July 30, 1999 and August 27, 1999 of the Secretary of Labor, are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Velasco, (Chairperson), Abad, and Sereno, JJ., concur.