DIGEST: FRANKLIN BAKER COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HONORABLE CRESENCIO B. TRAJANO

FRANKLIN BAKER COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HONORABLE CRESENCIO B. TRAJANO

G.R. No. 75039 January 28, 1988

PARAS, J.:

Facts: Private respondent Franklin Baker Brotherhood Association-(ATU) filed a petition for certification election among the office and technical employees of petitioner company with the Ministry of Labor and Employment. Among other things, it alleges that Franklin Baker Company of the Phils. Davao Plant, had in its employ approximately ninety (90) regular technical and office employees, which group is separate and distinct from the regular rank and file employees and is excluded from the coverage of existing Collective Bargaining Agreement.

 

Petitioner company did not object to the holding of such an election but manifested that out of the ninety (90) employees sought to be represented by the respondent union, seventy four (74) are managerial employees while two (2) others are confidential employees, hence, must be excluded from the certification election and from the bargaining unit that may result from such election

 

Med-Arbiter Martinez issued an order granting and a certifying  election among the office and technical employees of Franklin Baker Company of the Philippines.

 

Petitioner Company appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations, docketed as BLR Case No. A-22884, praying that the appealed order be set aside and another be issued declaring the seventy four (74) inspectors, foremen and supervisors as managerial employees.

 

ISSUE: whether or not subject employees are managerial employees under the purview of the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules;

 

Held:

 

No. A managerial employee is defined as one "who is vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees, or to effectively recommend such managerial actions." (Reynolds Phil. Corp. v. Eslava, 137 SCRA [1985], citing Section 212 (K), Labor Code.

 

It has also been shown that subject employees have the power to hire, as evidenced by the hiring of Rolando Asis, Roy Layson, ArcadioGaudicos and Felix Arciaga, upon the recommendation of Opening Inspector Serafin Suelo, Processing Inspector Leonardo Velez and Laureano C. Lim, Opening Inspector (Ibid., p. 21).

 

It will be noted, however, that in the performance of their duties and functions and in the exercise of their recommendatory powers, subject employees may only recommend, as the ultimate power to hire, fire or suspend as the case may be, rests upon the plant personnel manager.

 

The test of "supervisory" or "managerial status" depends on whether a person possesses authority to act in the interest of his employer in the matter specified in Article 212 (k) of the Labor Code and Section 1 (m) of its Implementing Rules and whether such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature, but requires the use of independent judgment. Thus, where such recommendatory powers as in the case at bar, are subject to evaluation, review and final action by the department heads and other higher executives of the company, the same, although present, are not effective and not an exercise of independent judgment as required by law (National Warehousing Corp. v. CIR, 7 SCRA 602-603 [1963]).

 

Furthermore, in line with the ruling of this Court, subject employees are not managerial employees because as borne by the records, they do not participate in policy making but are given ready policies to execute and standard practices to observe, thus having little freedom of action (National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority v. NWSA Consolidated, L-18938, 11 SCRA 766 [1964]).