San Miguel Foods Inc V San Miguel Corp Supervisors and Exempt Union

3/6/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 655
CASES REPORTED
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
____________________
G.R. No. 146206. August 1, 2011.*
SAN MIGUEL FOODS, INCORPORATED, petitioner, vs.

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION SUPERVISORS and
EXEMPT UNION, respondent.
Labor Law; Collective Bargaining Agreements; Bargaining

Unit; Words and Phrases; An appropriate bargaining unit is
defined as a group of employees of a given employer, comprised of
all or less than all of the entire body of employees, which the
collective interest of all the employees, consistent with equity to the
employer, indicate to be best suited to serve the reciprocal rights
and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions
of the law.—In G.R. No. 110399, the Court explained that the
employees of San Miguel Corporation Magnolia Poultry Products
Plants of Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis constitute a single
bargaining unit, which is not contrary to the one-company, one-
union policy. An appropriate bar-
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
San Miguel Foods, Incorporated vs. San Miguel Corporation

Supervisors and Exempt Union
gaining unit is defined as a group of employees of a given

employer, comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of
employees, which the collective interest of all the employees,
consistent with equity to the employer, indicate to be best suited
to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the
collective bargaining provisions of the law.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001780801704402cf4a05003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/19
Same; Same; Same; The basic test of an asserted bargaining

unit’s acceptability is whether or not it is fundamentally the
combination which will best assure to all employees the exercise of
their collective bargaining rights.—In National Association of Free
Trade Unions v. Mainit Lumber Development Company Workers
Union—United Lumber and General Workers of the Phils, 192
SCRA 598 (1990), 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 unit’s 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.
Same; Same; Same; Confidential Employees; Criteria; Words
and Phrases; 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 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
VOL. 655, AUGUST 1, 2011 3

custody, handling or care and protection of the employer’s

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.—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 employer’s 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.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The rationale for the separate
category of confidential employees 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.—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.
Same; Same; Same; Same; 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.—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 one’s 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 petitioner’s 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.
Same; Same; Certification Elections; Law and policy demand
that employers take a strict, hands-off stance in certification
elections—a labor bargaining representative, to be effective, must
owe its loyalty to the employees alone and to no other.—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.
VOL. 655, AUGUST 1, 2011 5


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.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Ongsiako for petitioner.
PERALTA, J.:
The issues in the present case, relating to the inclusion
of employees in supervisor levels 3 and 4 and the exempt
employees in the proposed bargaining unit, thereby
allowing their participation in the certification election; the
application of the “community or mutuality of interests”
test; and the determination of the employees who belong to
the category of confidential employees, are not novel.
In G.R. No. 110399, entitled San Miguel Corporation
Supervisors and Exempt Union v. Laguesma,1 the Court
held that even if they handle confidential data regarding
technical and internal business operations, supervisory
employees 3 and 4 and the exempt employees of petitioner
San Miguel Foods, Inc. (SMFI) are not to be considered
confidential employees, because the same do not pertain to
labor relations, particularly, negotiation and settlement of
grievances. Consequently, they were allowed to form an
appropriate bargaining unit for the purpose of collective
bargaining. The Court also declared that the employees
belonging to the three different plants of San Miguel
Corporation Magnolia Poultry Products
_______________
1 343 Phil. 143; 277 SCRA 370 (1997).

San Miguel Foods, Incorporated vs. San Miguel
Corporation Supervisors and Exempt Union
Plants in Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis, having

“community or mutuality of interests,” constitute a single
bargaining unit. They perform work of the same nature,
receive the same wages and compensation, and most
importantly, share a common stake in concerted activities.
It was immaterial that the three plants have different
locations as they did not impede the operations of a single
bargaining representative.2
Pursuant to the Court’s decision in G.R. No. 110399, the
Department of Labor and Employment—National Capital
Region (DOLE-NCR) conducted pre-election conferences.3
However, there was a discrepancy in the list of eligible
voters, i.e., petitioner submitted a list of 23 employees for
the San Fernando plant and 33 for the Cabuyao plant,
while respondent listed 60 and 82, respectively.4
On August 31, 1998, Med-Arbiter Agatha Ann L.
Daquigan issued an Order5 directing Election Officer
Cynthia Tolentino to proceed with the conduct of
certification election in accordance with Section 2, Rule XII
of Department Order No. 9.On September 30, 1998, a
certification election was conducted and it yielded the
following results,6 thus:
Cabuyao San Fernando Total

Plant
Plant
Yes 23 23 46
No 0 0 0
Spoiled 2 0 2
Segregated 41 35 76
Total Votes
Cast 66 58 124
_______________
2 Id., at pp. 151, 153-154; pp. 376, 380-381.
3 Per petitioner’s Reply to Comment dated January 6, 2004, its Otis
Plant is no longer operational.
4 See CA Decision dated April 28, 2000, p. 5; Rollo, p. 15.
5 Rollo, pp. 127-130.
6 Supra note 4.
VOL. 655, AUGUST 1, 2011 7

On the date of the election, September 30, 1998,

petitioner filed the Omnibus Objections and Challenge to
Voters,7 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.8
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.9
Adding the results to the number of votes canvassed
during the September 30, 1998 certification election, the
final tally
_______________
7 Rollo, pp. 131-133.
8 See Resolution dated July 30, 1999 of then Acting DOLE
Undersecretary Rosalinda Dimapilis-Baldoz, id., at p. 84.
9 Id.

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.10
The Med-Arbiter issued the Resolution11 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.12
Based on the results, the Med-Arbiter issued the Order13
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 Resolution14 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.
_______________
10 Id.
11 Rollo, pp. 142-150.
12 Supra note 8.
13 Rollo, pp. 88-89.
14 Per then Acting DOLE Undersecretary Rosalinda Dimapilis-Baldoz,
id., at pp. 83-86.
VOL. 655, AUGUST 1, 2011 9

Petitioner’s Partial Motion for Reconsideration15 dated

August 14, 1999 was denied by the then Acting DOLE
Undersecretary in the Order16 dated August 27, 1999.
In the Decision17 dated April 28, 2000, in CA-G.R. SP

No. 55510, entitled San Miguel Foods, Inc. v. The
Honorable Office of the Secretary of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Relations, and San Miguel Corporation Supervisors and
Exempt Union, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with
modification the Resolution dated July 30, 1999 of the
DOLE Undersecretary, stating that those holding the
positions of Human Resource Assistant and Personnel
Assistant are excluded from the bargaining unit.
Petitioner’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration18 dated
May 23, 2000 was denied by the CA in the Resolution19
dated November 28, 2000.
Hence, petitioner filed this present petition raising the
following issues:
I.
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS DEPARTED FROM
JURISPRUDENCE WHEN IT EXPANDED THE SCOPE OF
THE BARGAINING UNIT DEFINED BY THIS COURT’S
RULING IN G.R. NO. 110399.
_______________
15 CA Rollo, pp. 130-141.
16 Rollo, p. 87.
17 Penned by Associate Justice Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos, with Associate
Justices Corona Ibay-Somera and Elvi John S. Asuncion, concurring; id., at pp. 11-
26.
18 CA Rollo, pp. 437-449.
19 Penned by Associate Justice Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos, with Associate
Justices Elvi John S. Asuncion and Eliezer R. Delos Santos, concurring, Rollo, pp.
28-29.
10

II.
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS DEPARTED FROM
JURISPRUDENCE—SPECIFICALLY, THIS COURT’S
DEFINITION OF A “CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEE”—WHEN IT
RULED FOR THE INCLUSION OF THE “PAYROLL MASTER”
POSITION IN THE BARGAINING UNIT.
III.
WHETHER THIS PETITION IS A “REHASH” OR A
“RESURRECTION” OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN G.R. NO.
110399, AS ARGUED BY PRIVATE RESPONDENT.
Petitioner contends that with the Court’s ruling in G.R.

No. 11039920 identifying the specific employees who can
participate in the certification election, i.e., the supervisors
(levels 1 to 4) and exempt employees of San Miguel Poultry
Products Plants in Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis, the
CA erred in expanding the scope of the bargaining unit so
as to include employees who do not belong to or who are not
based in its Cabuyao or San Fernando plants. It also
alleges that the employees of the Cabuyao, San Fernando,
and Otis plants of petitioner’s predecessor, San Miguel
Corporation, as stated in G.R. No. 110399, were engaged in
“dressed” chicken processing, i.e., handling and packaging
of chicken meat, while the new bargaining unit, as defined
by the CA in the present case, includes employees engaged
in “live” chicken operations, i.e., those who breed chicks
and grow chickens.
Respondent counters that petitioner’s proposed
exclusion of certain employees from the bargaining unit
was a rehashed issue which was already settled in G.R. No.
110399. It maintains that the issue of union membership
coverage should no longer be raised as a certification
election already took place on September 30, 1998, wherein
respondent won with 97% votes.
_______________
20 San Miguel Corporation Supervisors and Exempt Employees Union
v. Laguesma, supra note 1.
11
VOL. 655, AUGUST 1, 2011 11

Petitioner’s contentions are erroneous. In G.R. No.

110399, the Court explained that the employees of San
Miguel Corporation Magnolia Poultry Products Plants of
Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis constitute a single
bargaining unit, which is not contrary to the one-company,
one-union policy. An appropriate bargaining unit is defined
as a group of employees of a given employer, comprised of
all or less than all of the entire body of employees, which
the collective interest of all the employees, consistent with
equity to the employer, indicate to be best suited to serve
the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the
collective bargaining provisions of the law.21
In National Association of Free Trade Unions v. Mainit

Lumber Development Company Workers Union—United
Lumber and General Workers of the Phils,22 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 unit’s
acceptability is whether or not it is fundamentally the
combination which will best assure to all employees the
exercise of their collective bargaining rights.23 Certainly,
there is a mutuality of interest among the employees of the
Sawmill Division and the Logging Division. Their functions
_______________
21 Id., at p. 153, citing University of the Philippines v. Calleja-Ferrer,
211 SCRA 451 (1992), which cited Rothenberg on Labor Relations, p. 482.
22 G.R. No. 79526, December 21, 1990, 192 SCRA 598.
23 Id., at p. 602, citing Democratic Labor Association v. Cebu
Stevedoring Company, Inc., et al., 103 Phil 1103 (1958).
12

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.24
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 Otis25 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.26 The two criteria are cumulative, and
both must be met if an em-
_______________
24 Id.
25 See note 3.
26 Sugbuanon Rural Bank, Inc., v. Laguesma, G.R. No. 381 Phil. 414,
424; 324 SCRA 425, 432 (2000), citing San Miguel Corp. Supervisors and
Exempt Employees Union v. Laguesma, supra note 1, at 374, which cited
Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. NLRB (CA6) 398 F2d. 689 (1968), Ladish
Co., 178 NLRB 90 (1969) and B.F. Goodrich Co., 115 NLRB 722 (1956).
13
VOL. 655, AUGUST 1, 2011 13

ployee 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.”27
A confidential employee is one entrusted with confidence
on delicate, or with the custody, handling or care and
protection of the employer’s property.28 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.29 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.
_______________
27 Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Asia Brewery v. Asia
Brewery, Inc., G.R. 162025, August 3, 2010, 626 SCRA 376, 387, citing
San Miguel Corp. Supervisors and Exempt Employees Union v. Laguesma,
supra note 1, at pp. 374-375, which cited Westinghouse Electric Corp. v.
NLRB, id., Ladish Co., id., and B.F. Goodrich Co., id.
28 Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No.
103300, August 10, 1999, 312 SCRA 104, 116.
29 Golden Farms, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja, 256 Phil. 903, 909; 175 SCRA
471, 477 (1989), cited in Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union
(SCBEU-NUBE) v. Standard Chartered Bank, G.R. No. 161933, April 22,
2008, 552 SCRA 284, 291-292 and Philips Industrial Development, Inc. v.
National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 88957, June 25, 1992, 210
SCRA 339, 348.
14

Corollarily, although Article 24530 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.31 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.32 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.33
_______________
30 Art. 245. Ineligibility of managerial employees to join any labor
organization; right of supervisory employees.—Managerial employees are
not eligible to join, assist or form any labor organization. Supervisory
employees shall not be eligible for membership in the collective bargaining
unit of the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form separate
collective bargaining units and/or legitimate labor organizations of their
own. The rank-and-file union and the supervisor's union operating within
the supervisors’ union operating within the same establishment may join
the same federation or national union.
31 Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Asia Brewery v. Asia
Brewery, Inc., supra note 27, at p. 381, citing Metrolab Industries, Inc. v.
Roldan-Confesor, G.R. No. 108855, February 28, 1996, 254 SCRA 182,
197.
32 Id., at pp. 381-382, citing Bulletin Publishing Corporation v.
Sanchez, 228 Phil. 600, 608-609; 144 SCRA 628, 635 (1986).
33 Id., at p. 382, citing Golden Farms, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja, supra note
29.
15
VOL. 655, AUGUST 1, 2011 15

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,34 the scope of one’s work necessarily
involves labor rela-
_______________
34 Human Resource Assistant: To support the human resources
objectives of the MPPP, MPF this position shall provide coordination,
advice, information and assistance to the plant personnel manager in the
following duties:
MANPOWER PLANNING (PROCESS[ING] AND LIVE)
1.1. Assists and participates in the studies on manning and

manpower forecasts needed to meet the current and future personnel
requirements of processing, live operations.
1.2. Checks plans for the implementation of staff movements such as
transfers, promotions and separations of both processing [and] live
operations.
1.3 Coordinates with all department[s] for the consolidation of
manpower cost budget and its complement.
1.4 Provides updated organization to the plant management.
COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION (PROCESSING AND LIVE)
2.1 Initially evaluates and classifies all positions.
2.2 Prepares salary analyses and recommendations for consultation
with compensation dept.
2.3 Develops/updates compensation packages for specific personnel
when the need arises.
2.4 Administers compensation-related benefits, such as extra time
worked allowance, special allowance, supplementary allowance, housing
assistance, per diem, relocation expense reimbursement, etc.
2.5 Provide the Personnel Manager Officer and Compensation
Department with the records related to Compensation such as salary
profiles per classification used negotiations.
RECRUITMENT (PROCESSING, LIVE)
3.1 Conducts preliminary interview of applicants before giving tests.
3.2 Coordinates with Dept. Heads/Managers pertaining to internal
recruitment selection and hiring of qualified applicants.
16

tions, recruitment and selection of employees, access to

employees’ personal files and compensation package, and
human resource management. As regards a Personnel
Assistant,35 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 petitioner’s team of lawyers, and
implementation of company programs. Therefore, in the
discharge of their functions, both
_______________
3.3. Checks all pre-employment papers of the applicants to ensure its
completeness such as the requisition, approved Plantilla, applicant’s SSS
number and TIN, etc. (CA Rollo, pp. 66-67) (Emphasis supplied.)
35 Personnel Assistant:
LABOR RELATIONS
1. Records minutes during Labor Management Cooperation dialogues
and CBA negotiations meeting and facilitates the same when requested.
2. Coordinates Grievance Meeting officially submitted by the Union to
Management and feedbacks PPM on schedules and results.
3. Provides support to departments in recording of minutes and
schedule of Administrative Investigations.
4. Consults and coordinates with SMB Legal Group to seek legal
clarification or opinion on certain labor issues and reports to PPM for
action.
5. Performs and maintains liaison with union representative on
certain issues to minimize courses of action.
6. Ensures timely preparation and submission of DOLE monthly and
quarterly reportorial requirements.
EMPLOYEE RELATIONS
1. Facilitates timely implementation of Corporate Special Programs
in discussion with the PPM aligned with budgeted costs and Management
thrust.
2. Coordinates with local unions for participation/support in the
activities of program implementation and reports to PPM on results of
meetings.
3. Maintains regular dialogues and liaisoning activities with
employees on concern affecting them and provides feedback to PPM. (Id.,
at pp. 69-70) (Emphasis supplied.)
17
VOL. 655, AUGUST 1, 2011 17

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.36 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.37 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.38 The only
exception is where the employer
_______________
36 United Pepsi-Cola Supervisory Union (UPSU) v. Laguesma, 351
Phil. 244, 261; 288 SCRA 15, 26 (1998) citing B.F. Goodrich Philippines,
Inc. v. B.F. Goodrich (Marikina Factory) Confidential & Salaried
Employees Union-NATU, 151 Phil. 585; 49 SCRA 532 (1973).
37 Barbizon Philippines, Inc. v. Nagkakaisang Supervisor ng Barbizon
Philippines, Inc., 330 Phil. 472, 493; 261 SCRA 738, 756 (1996), citing
Golden Farms, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 102130, July 26, 1994,
234 SCRA 517, 523; National Association of Trade Unions—Republic
Planters Bank Supervisors Chapter v. Torres, G.R. No. 93468, December
29, 1994, 239 SCRA 546, 551; Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corp. v.
Laguesma, G.R. No. 101730, June 17, 1993, 223 SCRA 452, 456-457.
38 Barbizon Philippines, Inc. v. Nagkakaisang Supervisor ng Barbizon
Philippines, Inc.-NAFLU, supra, citing Golden Farms, Inc. v. Secretary of
Labor, supra.
18

itself has to file the petition pursuant to Article 25839 of the

Labor Code because of a request to bargain collectively.40
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, Jr. (Chairperson), Abad and

Sereno,*** JJ., concur.
Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.
_______________
39 Art. 258. When an employer may file petition.—When requested to

bargain collectively, an employer may petition the Bureau for an election.
If there is no existing certified collective bargaining agreement in the unit,
the Bureau shall, after hearing, order a certification election.
All certification election cases shall be decided within twenty (20) days.
The Bureau shall conduct a certification election within twenty (20)
days in accordance with the rules and regulations prescribed by the
Secretary of Labor.
40 National Association of Trade Unions-Republic Planters Bank
Supervisors Chapter v. Torres, supra note 37.
** Designated as an additional member in lieu of Associate Justice
Jose Catral Mendoza, per Special Order No. 1056a dated July 27, 2011.
*** Designated as an additional member, per Special Order No. 1028
dated June 21, 2011.
19
VOL. 655, AUGUST 1, 2011 19

Notes.—An employee belonging to the appropriate

bargaining unit but who is not a member of the union
cannot vote in the union election, unless otherwise
authorized by the constitution and by-laws of the union—
union affairs and elections cannot be decided in a non-
union activity. (UST Faculty Union (USTFU) vs. Bitonio,
Jr., 318 SCRA 185 [1999])
Legitimate labor organizations have exclusive rights
under the law which cannot be exercised by non-legitimate
unions, one of which is the right to be certified as the
exclusive representative of all the employees in an
appropriate collective bargaining unit for purposes of
collective bargaining. (San Miguel Corporation Employees
Union-Philippine Transport and General Workers
Organization (SMCEU-PTGWO) vs. San Miguel Packaging
Products Employees Union-Pambansang Diwa ng
Manggagawang Pilipino (SMPPEU-PDMP), 533 SCRA 125
[2007])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

San Miguel Foods Inc V San Miguel Corp Supervisors and Exempt Union

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

San Miguel Foods Inc V San Miguel Corp Supervisors and Exempt Union

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

San Miguel Foods Inc V San Miguel Corp Supervisors and Exempt Union

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is an appropriate bargaining unit?

What is an appropriate bargaining unit?

What are the criteria for determining whether employees should be considered confidential?

What are the criteria for determining whether employees should be considered confidential?

3/6/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 655

G.R. No. 146206. August 1, 2011.*

SAN MIGUEL FOODS, INCORPORATED, petitioner, vs.

Labor Law; Collective Bargaining Agreements; Bargaining

2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

San Miguel Foods, Incorporated vs. San Miguel Corporation

gaining unit is defined as a group of employees of a given

Same; Same; Same; The basic test of an asserted bargaining

VOL. 655, AUGUST 1, 2011 3

San Miguel Foods, Incorporated vs. San Miguel Corporation

custody, handling or care and protection of the employer’s

confidential information may become the source of undue

4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

San Miguel Foods, Incorporated vs. San Miguel Corporation

act in a fiduciary manner to managerial employees and, hence,

VOL. 655, AUGUST 1, 2011 5

San Miguel Foods, Incorporated vs. San Miguel Corporation

Law and policy demand that employers take a strict, hands-off

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Plants in Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis, having

Cabuyao San Fernando Total

VOL. 655, AUGUST 1, 2011 7

On the date of the election, September 30, 1998,

Voters,7 questioning the eligibility to vote by some of its

8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

showed that: number of eligible voters – 149; number of

number of votes cast – 124, with 118 (i.e., 46 + 72 = 118 )

VOL. 655, AUGUST 1, 2011 9

Petitioner’s Partial Motion for Reconsideration15 dated

In the Decision17 dated April 28, 2000, in CA-G.R. SP

10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Petitioner contends that with the Court’s ruling in G.R.

VOL. 655, AUGUST 1, 2011 11

Petitioner’s contentions are erroneous. In G.R. No.

In National Association of Free Trade Unions v. Mainit

12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

commonality of interest. Although they seem separate and

VOL. 655, AUGUST 1, 2011 13

ployee is to be considered a confidential employee—that is,

advantage.29 However, such fact does not apply to the

14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Corollarily, although Article 24530 of the Labor Code

denominated with the presence of managerial employees in

VOL. 655, AUGUST 1, 2011 15

In this regard, the CA correctly ruled that the positions

1.1. Assists and participates in the studies on manning and

16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

tions, recruitment and selection of employees, access to

VOL. 655, AUGUST 1, 2011 17

gain access to vital labor relations information which

free from any extraneous influence of management. A labor

18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

itself has to file the petition pursuant to Article 25839 of the

Carpio,** Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Abad and