PHILTRANCO SERVICE ENTERPRISES, petitioner,
vs.
BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS and KAPISANAN NG MGA
KAWANI, ASSISTANT, MANGGAGAWA AT KONPIDENSIYAL
SA PHILTRANCO, respondents.
FACTS:
Petitioner Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. is a land
transportation company engaged in the business of carrying
passengers and freight. The company employees included field
workers consisting of drivers, conductors, coach drivers, coach
stewards and mechanics and office employees like clerks,
cashiers, programmers, telephone operators, etc.
On February 15, 1988, the Kapisanan ng mga Kawani, Assistant,
Manggagawa at Konpidensyal sa Philtranco (KASAMA KO) filed
a petition for certification election with the Department of Labor
and Employment, alleging among others that it desires to
represent all professional, technical, administrative, and
confidential employees personnel of respondent at its
establishments in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao for purposes of
collective bargaining.
They claim that the employees which they seek to represent were
always excluded from participating in the certification election
among rank and file employees and are also excluded from the
bargaining unit covered by the CBA between the company and its
rank and file employees.
On February 24, 1988, the National Mines and Allied Workers
Union (NAMAWU-MIF) filed a motion for intervention alleging that
it is the bargaining agent of the workers at Philtranco and as such
it has a substantial interest in the outcome of the petition.
On April 4, 1988, a resolution was rendered dismissing the
Petition of Certification Election filed by KASAMA KO.
KASAMA KO appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR)
On September 5, 1988 the BLR reversed the resolution of the
Med-Arbiter. A motion for reconsideration was denied in an order
dated October 10, 1988.
ISSUE:
1. WON the BLRs decision of granting KASAMA KOs Petition for
Certification Election was proper (NO)
2. WON there exists substantial differences between the work
performed by respondents and the rank and file employees (NO)
RATIO:
1. Section 11 of Rule II, Book V of the Omnibus Rules
implementing the Labor Code did away with existing supervisors'
unions classifying the members either as managerial or rank and
file employees depending on the work they perform. If they
discharge managerial functions, supervisors are prohibited from
forming or joining any labor organization. If they do not perform
managerial work, they may join the rank and file union and if none
exists, they may form one such rank and file organization. This
rule was emphasized in the case of Bulletin Publishing Corp. v.
Sanchez,
It, therefore, follows that the members of the KASAMA KO who
are professional, technical, administrative and confidential
personnel of PHILTRANCO performing managerial functions are
not qualified to join, much less form a union.
The respondents claim that their status as rank and file
employees was allegedly recognized by this Court in the case of
Pantranco South Express, Inc. v. NAMAWU. However, their
reliance in this cse is misplaced because we denied their petition
for lack of merit in a minute resolution. There was absolutely no
discussion on the recognition of another separate rank and file
union in addition to the existing bargaining unit.
Managers by any name may not join the rank and file union. On
the other hand, those who are rank and file workers may join the
existing bargaining unit instead of organizing another bargaining
unit and compelling the employer to deal with it.
We are constrained to disallow the formation of another union.
There is no dispute that there exists a labor union in the
company, herein intervenor, the NAMAWU-MIF which is the
collective bargaining agent of the rank and file employees in
PHILTRANCO.
We see no need for the formation of another union in
PHILTRANCO. The qualified members of the KASAMA KO may
join the NAMAWU-MIF if they want to be union members, and to
be consistent with the one-union, one-company policy of the
Department of Labor and Employment, and the laws it enforces.
It would not be in the interest of sound labor-management
relations if each group of employees assigned to a specialized
function or section would decide to break away from their fellow-
workers and form their own separate bargaining unit. We cannot
allow one unit for typists and clerks, one unit for accountants,
another unit for messengers and drivers, and so on in needless
profusion.
2. The respondents state that this case is an exception to the
general rule considering that substantial differences exist
between the office employees or professional, technical,
administrative and confidential employees vis-a-vis the field
workers or drivers, conductors and mechanics of the petitioner.
Against this contention, we find that the "substantial differences"
in the terms and conditions of employment between the private
respondent's members and the rest of the company's rank and
file employees are more imagined than real. PHILTRANCO is a
large bus company engaged in the business of carrying
passengers and freight, servicing Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao.
Certainly there is a commonality of interest among filing clerks,
dispatchers, drivers, typists, and field men. They are all interested
in the progress of their company and in each worker sharing in
the fruits of their endeavors equitably and generously. Their
functions mesh with one another. One group needs the other in
the same way that the company needs them all. The drivers,
mechanics and conductors are necessary for the company but
technical, administrative and office personnel are also needed
and equally important for the smooth operation of the business.
There may be differences as to the nature of their individual
assignments but the distinctions are not enough to warrant the
formation of separate unions. The private respondent has not
even shown that a separate bargaining unit would be beneficial to
the employees concerned. Office employees also belong to the
rank and file. There is an existing employer wide unit in the
company represented by NAMAWU-MIF. And as earlier stated,
the fact that NAMAWU-MIF moved to intervene in the petition for
certification election filed by KASAMA KO negates the allegations
that "substantial differences" exist between the employees
concerned. We find a commonality of interest among them. There April 4, 1988 is REINSTATED. The restraining order issued by the
are no compelling reasons for the formation of another union. Court on November 7, 1988 is made permanent.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Bureau of Labor Relations, SO ORDERED.

dated September 5, 1988 and the Order dated October 10, 1988
are hereby SET ASIDE. The resolution of the Med-Arbiter dated