CASE DIGEST: PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION VS LAGUESMA

PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE

CORPORATION

VS

LAGUESMA

G.R. No. 101730

[June 17, 1993]

NATURE

-petition for certiorari

FACTS

-PT&T Supervisory Employees Union-APSOTEU (UNION, for brevity) filed a petition before the Industrial Relations Division of the Department of Labor and Employment praying for the holding of a certification election among the supervisory employees of petitioner Philippine Telegraph & Telephone Corporation (PT&T, for brevity).

-UNION amended its petition to include the allegation that PT&T was an unorganized establishment employing roughly 100 supervisory employees from whose ranks will constitute the bargaining unit sought to be established

-PT&T moved to dismiss the petition for certification election on the ground that UNION members were performing managerial functions and thus were not merely supervisory employees. Moreover, PT&T alleged that a certified bargaining unit already existed among its rank-and-file employees which barred the filing of the petition.

-UNION opposed the motion to dismiss, contending that under the Labor Code supervisory employees are not eligible to join the labor organization of the rank-and-file employees although they may form their own.

-The Med-Arbiter granted the petition and ordered that “a certification election . . . (be) conducted among the supervisory personnel of the Philippine Telegraph & Telephone Corporation (PT&T).”

ISSUE

2. WON there should be a certification election pushed by the UNION

HELD

2. YES.

Reasoning The applicable provision of law in the case at bar is Art. 257 of the Labor Code. It reads — “Art. 257. Petitions in unorganized establishments. — In any establishment where there is no certified bargaining agent, a certification election shall automatically be conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate labor organization” (emphasis supplied)

The supervisory employees of PT&T did not yet have a certified bargaining agent to represent them at the time the UNION, which is a legitimate labor organization duly registered with the Department of Labor and Employment, filed the petition for certification election. Since no certified bargaining agent represented the supervisory employees, PT&T may be deemed an unorganized establishment within the purview of Art. 257 of the Labor Code. The fact that petitioner’s rank-and-file employees were already represented by a certified bargaining agent does not make PT&T an organized establishment vis-a-vis the supervisory employees. After all, supervisory employees are “not . . . eligible for

membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees.” Consequently, the Med-Arbiter, as sustained by public respondent, committed no grave abuse of discretion in granting the petition for certification election among the supervisory employees of petitioner PT&T because Art. 257 of the Labor Code provides that said election should be automatically conducted upon filing of the petition. In fact, Sec. 6 of Rule V, Book V, of the Implementing Rules and Regulations makes it mandatory for the Med-Arbiter to order the holding of a certification election. It reads — “Sec. 6. Procedure. — Upon receipt of a petition, the Regional Director shall assign the case to a Med-Arbiter for appropriate action. The Med-Arbiter, upon receipt of the assigned petition, shall have twenty (2) working days from submission of the case for resolution within which to dismiss or grant the petition. In a petition filed by a legitimate organization involving an unorganized establishment, the Med-Arbiter shall immediately order the conduct of a certification election . . .”

Disposition

Petition DENIED