Labor 2

Holy Child Catholic School v. Hon. P. Sto. Tomas & HCC-TELU-PIGLAS (2013)
Peralta
Under what topic: Right to Self-Organization Covered Emploees/Workers Supervisory
Employees
Petitioner: Holy Child Catholic School
Respondents: Hon Patricia Sto. Tomas (SOLE), and Pinag-Isang Tinig at Lakas ng Anakpawis
Holy Child Catholic School Teachers and Employees Labor Union (HCCS-TELU-PIGLAS)
Synopsis:
PIGLAS filed a petition for certification election, as regards a proposed bargaining unit
comprised by teachers and other employees of HCCS. HCCS sought to block the certification
election, on the ground that PIGLAS was an illegitimate labor org. and was an inappropriate
bargaining unit according to HCCS, PIGLAS was a mixture of employees, including those
occupying managerial and supervisory positions, and represented teachers and not teachers.
The Med-Arbiter denied the petition for certification election on the ground that the unit that
PIGLAS sought to represent was inappropriate, in view of the two classes of employees
teaching and non-teaching staff. On appeal, the SOLE reversed the dismissal and instead
directed the holding of two separate certification elections, one for each class of employee.
The CA concluded that the SOLE, in so deciding, did not commit a GAD.
The SC upheld the decision of the CA. The SC reiterated that the alleged inclusion of
supervisory employees in a labor organization seeking to represent the bargaining unit of rankand-file employees does not divest it of its status as a legitimate labor organization. The status
of a duly-registered labor organization cannot be challenged collaterally; and in accordance
with the Bystander Rule, a certification election is the sole concern of employees.
Doctrine:
while there is a prohibition against the mingling of supervisory and rank-and-file employees in
one labor organization, the Labor Code does not provide for the effects thereof. The alleged
inclusion of supervisory employees in a labor organization seeking to represent the bargaining
unit of rank-and-file employees does not affect that organizations right to file a petition for
Facts:

head/supervisor, and 11 coordinators) but

also a combination of teaching and nonMay 31, 2002 A petition for certification
teaching personnel (27 non-teaching
election was filed by HCSS-TELU-PIGLAS
personnel).
(PIGLAS), a duly registered labor organization.
It insisted that the PIGLAS was an
120 teachers and employees (out of 156 total
illegitimate labor organization lacking
employees) comprised the proposed bargaining
in personality to file a petition for
unit.
certification election for not being in
accord with Article 245 and an
HCCS, on the other hand in its comment and
inappropriate bargaining unit for want
position paper alleged that PIGLAS members
of community or mutuality of interest.
do not belong to the same class: PIGLAS is
not only a mixture of managerial,
PIGLAS countered the HCCS failed to
supervisory, and rank-and-file employees substantiate its claim that some of the
(3 vice-principals, 1 department

Labor 2
employees included in the petition holds
managerial and supervisory positions.
The CA eventually dismissed the petition.
And even assuming that it is true,
The CA held that the Vice Principals,
mixture of employees is not one of
Department Head, and Coordinators are
the enumerated instances in which a
neither supervisory nor managerial
petition shall be dismissed (DO No.9).
employees they wield no policy-making
o Questions pertaining to
authority (they are limited to
recommending policies).
qualifications of employees may be
o Thus, there is no improper
threshed out in the inclusionexclusion proceedings.
commingling of members as to
preclude the petition for
PIGLAS contended that the will of the
certification of election.
employees should be respected they
The CA also ruled that the SOLE did not
had manifested their desire to be
represented by only one bargaining unit.
commit GAD in not dismissing the petition
o It asserted that academic and onfor certification election since it directed
the conduct of two separate certification
academic personnel have similar
elections for teaching and non-teaching
working conditions.
units.
The Med-Arbiter denied the petition for
The CA denied the MR hence, this petition.
certification election on the ground that
the unit which the PIGLAS sought to
Issue/s - Holding:
represent is inappropriate.
The Med-Arbiter held that PIGLAS failed
the community or mutuality of interest (1) Is a petition for certification election is
dismissible on the ground that the labor
test: whether or not it is fundamentally
the combination which will best assure to organizations membership allegedly consists of
supervisory and rank-and-file employees. (NO.)
all employees the exercise of their
collective bargaining rights.
(2) Did the CA err in holding that the SOLE did
o There were 2 classes: teaching
not commit GAD in not dismissing the petition
staff and non-teaching staff.
for certification election? (NO.)
The Union appealed to the SOLE.
The SOLE ruled against the dismissal and Ratio:
directed the conduct of two separate
certification elections for the teaching and the (1) Current rule: the alleged inclusion of
supervisory employees in a labor organization
non-teaching personnel.
It held that although there are differences does not affect that organizations right to file a
petition for certification.
in the nature of work, hours and
conditions of work and salary
*Note: bystander rule a certification election
determination, these differences are not
is the sole concern of the workers.
substantial enough to warrant the
Even when the employer has to file the
dismissal of the petition., as pointed out
petition (Art. 259), as after filing its role in
by PIGLAS.
the certification process ceases.
o PIGLAS could exists as a legitimate

This is done in order to avoid the

labor org. but it shall represent
impression that the employer is battling
both classes of employees in
for a company union.
separate bargaining negotiations
and agreements.
Current Rule
HCSS filed before the CA a petition for certiorari
with a Prayer for TRO and Preliminary Injunction.

Labor 2
But on June 21, 1997, the 1989 Amended
(2) No error on the part of the CA in holding that
Omnibus Rules was further amended by DO No. the SOLE did not commit GAD in not dismissing
9. The requirement under Sec. 2(c) - that the petition for certification election on the
the petition for certification election
ground that PIGLAS was not qualified to file such
indicate that the bargaining unit of rank- a petition in the first place, for failing to qualify
and-file employees has not been mingled as a legitimate labor org.
with supervisory employees - was
removed.
SC: the concepts of a union and a legitimate
In Tagaytay Highlands Int'l. Golf Club, labor organization are different from, but relate
Inc. v. Tagaytay Highlands Employees to, the concept of a bargaining unit.
Union-PTGWO, it was held that any
A labor organization as "any union or
mingling between supervisory
association of employees which exists in whole
and rank-and-file employees in
its membership cannot affect its or in part for the purpose of collective
legitimacy for that is not among the bargaining or of dealing with employers
concerning terms and conditions of
grounds for cancellation of its
registration, unless such mingling was employment. [Art. 212(g), LC]
Having been validly issued a
brought about by misrepresentation,
false statement or fraud under Article
certificate of registration (by the
239 of the Labor Code.
Regional Office or Bureau), PIGLAS
o Thus, the doctrine
should be considered as having
acquired juridical personality which
enunciated in Toyota and
may not be attacked collaterally.
Dunlop was abandoned.
o The correct procedure for an
In subsequent cases, the SC
employer would be to file a
reiterated that the alleged
petition for cancellation of the
inclusion of supervisory
unions certificate of
employees in a labor organization
registration due to
seeking to represent the
misrepresentation, false
bargaining unit of rank-and-file
statement, or fraud, under the
employees does not divest it of
circumstances enumerated in
its status as a legitimate labor
Art. 239 of the LC, as
organization.
amended.
DO No. 9 is applicable in this case as the
A bargaining unit has been defined as a
petition for certification election was filed on
"group of employees of a given employer,
May 31, 2002. It must also be stressed that
HCCS cannot collaterally attack the legitimacy comprised of all or less than all of the entire
body of employees, which the collective
of private respondent by praying for the
dismissal of the petition for certification election interests of all the employees, consistent with
equity to the employer, indicated to be best
(recall the Bystander Rule).
suited to serve reciprocal rights and duties of
Moreover, the determination of
the parties under the collective bargaining
whether union membership
provisions of the law.
comprises managerial and/or
A bargaining unit is a group of
supervisory employees is a
employees sought to be represented
factual issue that is best left for
by a petitioning union. Such
resolution in the inclusionemployees need not be members of a
exclusion proceedings, which has
union seeking the conduct of a
not yet happened in this case so still
certification election.
premature to pass upon.
o A union certified as an
exclusive bargaining agent

Labor 2
employees under their supervision but
represents not only its
may form separate organizations of their
members but also other
own.
employees who are not union
members.
However, nothing in RA 875 provides for the
What the UP v. Ferrer-Calleja case
effect of mingling on the legitimacy of the labor
prohibits is the commingling of
teaching and non-teaching personnel organization. Under section 15, the only
in one bargaining unit they have to instance when a labor org. loses its legitimacy is
be separated into 2 bargaining units, when it violates its duty to bargain collectively.
In Lopez v. Chronicle Publication
with two separate certification
Employees Association, it was
elections.
pronounced that the absence of any
o The SOLEs decision was not
provision on the effect of the
incompatible with this doctrine.
disqualification of one of its organizers
upon the legality of the union, may be
SC: Indeed, the purpose of a certification
construed to confine the effect of such
election is precisely to ascertain the majority of
ineligibility only upon the membership of
the employees choice of an appropriate
the supervisor. In other words, the
bargaining unit to be or not to be represented
invalidity of membership of one of
by a labor organization and, if in the affirmative
the organizers does not make the
case, by which one.
union illegal, where the
requirements of the law for the
Dispositive:
organization thereof are,
nevertheless, satisfied and met.
Petition DENIED. Decision of the CA AFFIRMED.

The Labor Code was enacted, however, without

reproducing Sec. 3 of RA 875. Article 290 which
For recitation, this part may not be necessary as is the closest to Sec. 3 is silent on the
prohibition against supervisory employees
the Toyota and Dunlop doctrines [relevant to
mingling with rank-and-file employees in one
issue (1)] are no longer good law. But in case
labor organization.
Maam asks, you may refer to the following.
Thus, it was declared in Bulletin v.
[NOTE: after this section, you may refer to some
Sanchez that supervisory employees who
excerpts from J. Brions separate opinion
do not fall under the category of
explaining bargaining units.]
managerial employees may join or
assist in the formation of a labor
Development of the Rule
organization for rank-and-file
employees, but they may not form
It was in RA 875 (Pre-Labor Code) that the
their own labor organization.
questioned mingling of employees was first
E.O. No.111, which amended certain
prohibited, to wit:
provisions of Book V continued to
recognize the right of supervisory
Sec. 3. Employees' right to selforganization. - Employees shall have the right
employees (who are not managerial
to self-organization and to form, join or assist
employees) to join a rank-and-file labor
labor organizations of their own choosing for
organization.
Digesters notes:

the purpose of collective bargaining through

representatives of their own choosing and to
Effective 1989, RA 6715 restored the
engage in concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining and other mutual aid prohibition against the questioned
mingling in one labor organization.
or protection. Individuals employed as
supervisors shall not be eligible for
Art. 245. Ineligibility of managerial
membership in a labor organization of
employees to join any labor organization;

Labor 2
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 a labor organization of
the rank-and-file employees but may
join, assist or form separate labor
organizations of their own.

Unfortunately, RA 6715 also omitted specifying

the exact effect any violation of the prohibition
would bring about on the legitimacy of a labor
organization.
It was the IRR which supplied the
deficiency with the amendment to Rule II
(Registration of Unions):

Dunlop: reiterated that such labor

organization had no legal right to file a
certification election to represent a
bargaining unit composed of supervisors
for as long as it counted rank-and-file
employees among its members.

Excerpts from the separate Opinion of J.

Brion

"[The SC] explained for the first time in

Democratic Labor Association v. Cebu
Stevedoring Company, Inc., et al. that several
factors determine an appropriate bargaining
unit, namely: '(1) will of employees (Globe
Doctrine); (2) affinity and unity of employees
Sec. 1. Who may join unions. - x x
x Supervisory employees and security
interest, such as substantial similarity of work
guards shall not be eligible for membership and duties, or similarity of compensation and
in a labor organization of the rank-and-file working conditions; (3) prior collective
employees but may join, assist or form
bargaining history; and (4) employment status,
separate labor organizations of their
such as temporary, seasonal and probationary
own; Provided, that those supervisory employees
employees[.]' We also held that the basic test of
who are included in an existing rank-and-file
bargaining unit, upon the effectivity of Republic a bargaining units acceptability is the
'combination which will best assure to all
Act No. 6715, shall remain in that unit x x x.
employees the exercise of their collective
and Rule V (Representation Cases and bargaining rights[.]'"
Internal-Union Conflicts), Sec 2(c):
xxx xxx xxx
The petition, when filed by a legitimate labor
organization, shall contain, among others:
xxxx

"Law and jurisprudence, thus, provide that the

commonality or mutuality of interest is the most
fundamental standard of an appropriate
(c) description of the bargaining unit which bargaining unit. This standard requires that the
shall be the employer unit unless
employees in an asserted bargaining unit be
circumstances otherwise require; and
similarly situated in their terms and conditions
provided further, that the appropriate
of employment relations. This commonality or
bargaining unit of the rank-and-file
mutuality may be appreciated with greater
employees shall not include supervisory
certainty if their areas of differences with other
employees and/or security guards.
groups of employees are considered"
It was during state of the Rules when
Toyota and Dunlop cases which HCCS
relied upon were decided.
Toyota: [A]n organization which carries a
mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory
employees cannot possess any of the
rights of a legitimate labor organization,
including the right to file a petition for
certification election for the purpose of
collective bargaining.

xxx xxx xxx

"The adage that there is strength in numbers in
a single collective bargaining unit is significant
when the employees are similarly situated, that
is, they have the same or similar areas of
interests and differences from others in their
employment relations. However, strength in
numbers as a consideration must take a back
seat to the ultimate standard of the employees

Labor 2
right to self- organization based on commonality characterized by diversity of interests cannot
or mutuality of interest; simply put, a collective fully maximize the exercise of its collective
bargaining unit whose membership is
bargaining rights."