Paper Industries Corp. of the Philippines v. Hon.

Bienvenido Laguesma
(USec of Labor and Employment) Hon. Henry Pabel (Director of DOLE
Regional Office no. 6 and/or Representation Officer of the Industrial
Relations Division), PCOP- Bilsig Supervisory and Technical Staff
Employees Union, Association Labor Union and Federation of Free Workers.
April 12, 2000
De Leon, Jr. J,

SV: PBSTSEU instituted petition for certification elections to determine

their agent for CBA purposes. PICOP questioned the inclusion of their
section heads and supervisors in the voters list since PICOP claimed that
they were managerial employees based on their company organizational
restructuring. PICOP contests that as managerial employees, they are
ineligible to form and join the union. SC ruled that an employee is
designated a manager does not ipso facto make him one. Designation
should be reconciled with the actual job description of the employee.
Looking closely into their job description, these section heads and
supervisors are not merely supervisory employees and not managers.

Facts:
Paper Industries Corp of the Philippines (PICOP) is engaged in the
manufacture of paper and timber products with principal place of
operation in Tabon, Bislig, Surigao del Sur. It has over 9,000
employees, 944 of whom are supervisory and technical staff
employees. 487 of these supervisory and technical staff employees
are signatory members of the PICOP-Bislig Supervisory and Technical
Staff Employees Union (PBSTSEU)
Aug. 9, 1989, PBSTSEU instituted a petition for certification election
to determine the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the
supervisory and technical staff employees of PICOP for CBA
purposes.
PICOP was given a 15 day period to file its comments and/or a
position paper on the matter but failed to file it.
Federation of Free Workers (FFW) and Associated Labor Union (ALU)
filed their petition for intervention. This petition was granted by
Med-Arbiter Arturo Gamolo. An order was made setting the
certification election with four choices, namely: 1) PBSTSEU, 2) FFW,
3) ALU, 4) no union.
PICOP appealed the order contending grave abuse of discretion on
the part of Med-Arbiter for deciding the case without giving them
the opportunity to answer/comment and that PBSTSEU had no
personality to file petition for certification election.
After PBSTSEU filed its comments, the Secretary of Labor upheld the
Med-Arbiters order with modification allowing the supervising and
staff employees in Cebu, Davao, and Iligan to participate in the
certification election.
PICOP questioned the inclusion of some section heads and
supervisors in the list of voters whose positions were reclassified as
managerial employees in light of the reorganization.
 o Under the revised org structure of PICOP: 4 main business
groups VP & AVP division manager department
manager section heads and supervisors (now designated as
section managers and unit managers)
o PICOP was in the view that the section heads and supervisors
had the authority to hire and fire, classifying them as
managerial employees, hence, ineligible to form or join any
labor organization under Art 245 of the LC.
Med-Arbiter Pura issued order holding the section heads supervisors
are managerial employees and are excluded from the list of voters
for the purposes of certification election.
PBSTSEU & ALU appealed the order to DOLE. Usec. of Labor,
Laguesma set aside the order of Med-Arbiter Pura and declared the
section heads and supervisors eligible to vote in the certification
elections.
PICOP sought reconsideration but was denied.
Issues: WON the section heads and supervisors were converted to
managerial employees under the decentralization and reorganization
program.
Ruling: Petition denied
Ratio:
In United Pepsi-Cola Supervisory Union v. Laguesma, the term
managerial employees are ranked as top managers, middle
managers, and first line managers. The top and middle managers
have the authority to devise, implement and control strategic and
operational policies while the first-line managers ensure that such
policies are carried out by the rank-and-file employees.
o Managers per se are composed of top and middle managers.
o Supervisors composed of the first-line managers.
The mere fact that an employee is designated a manager does not
ipso facto make him one. Designation should be reconciled with the
actual job description of the employee.
A thorough dissection of the job description of the section heads and
supervisors indisputable show that they are not actually managerial
but only supervisory employees since they do not lay down
company policies.
o They do not actually fire or hire employees, rather they merely
advise. Their authority to hire, promote, transfer, suspend and
terminate employees is not final and is still subject to
confirmation and approval by their superior.
o Where such power, which is in effect recommendatory in
character, is subject to evaluation, review and final action by
their superior, although present, is not effective and not an
exercise of independent judgment as required by law.
There was no denial of due process since PICOP had already
submitted voluminous supporting documents regarding their claims.
PICOP has long harped on its contentions and these were properly
dealt upon and resolved in detail by respondent Laguesma.
 The fact that PICOP voiced out its objection to the holding of
certification election, despite numerous opportunities to ventilate
the same, only after USec Laguesma affirmed the holding of such
election, simply bolstered the respondents conclusion that PICOP
raised the issue merely to prevent the concerned section heads and
supervisors from exercising a right granted by law.