G.R. No. 122226

G.R. No. 122226, March 25, 1998,
♦ Decision, Mendoza, [J]
♦ Concurring & Dissenting Opinion, Davide, [J]
♦ Separate Concurring Opinion, Puno, [J]
♦ Separate Concurring & Dissenting Opinion, Vitug, [J]

UNITED PEPSI-COLA SUPERVISORY UNION (UPSU), petitioner,
vs.
HON. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA and PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS, PHILIPPINES, INC. respondents.

Petitioner is a union of supervisory employees. It appears that on March 20, 1995 the union filed a petition for certification election on behalf of the route managers at Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. However, its petition was denied by the med-arbiter and, on appeal, by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, on the ground that the route managers are managerial employees and, therefore, ineligible for union membership under the first sentence of Art. 245 of the Labor Code, which provides:

Petitioner brought this suit challenging the validity of the order dated August 31, 1995, as reiterated in the order dated September 22, 1995, of the Secretary of Labor and Employment. Its petition was dismissed by the Third Division for lack of showing that respondent committed grave abuse of discretion. But petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, pressing for resolution its contention that the first sentence of Art. 245 of the Labor Code, so far as it declares managerial employees to be ineligible to form, assist or join unions, contravenes Art. III, §8 of the Constitution which provides:

Two questions are presented by the petition: (1) whether the route managers at Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. are managerial employees and (2) whether Art. 245, insofar as it prohibits managerial employees from forming, joining or assisting labor unions, violates Art. III, §8 of the Constitution.

In resolving these issues it would be useful to begin by defining who are "managerial employees" and considering the types of "managerial employees."

The term "manager" generally refers to "anyone who is responsible for subordinates and other organizational resources."1 As a class, managers constitute three levels of a pyramid:

FIRST-LINE MANAGERS — The lowest level in an organization at which individuals are responsible for the work of others is called first-line or first-level management. First-line managers direct operating employees only; they do not supervise other managers. Examples of first-line managers are the "foreman" or production supervisor in a manufacturing plant, the technical supervisor in a research department, and the clerical supervisor in a large office. First-level managers are often called supervisors.

MIDDLE MANAGERS — The term middle management can refer to more than one level in an organization. Middle managers direct the activities of other managers and sometimes also those of operating employees. Middle managers' principal responsibilities are to direct the activities that implement their organizations' policies and to balance the demands of their superiors with the capacities of their subordinates. A plant manager in an electronics firm is an example of a middle manager.

TOP MANAGERS — Composed of a comparatively small group of executives, top management is responsible for the overall management of the organization. It establishes operating policies and guides the organization's interactions with its environment. Typical titles of top managers are "chief executive officer," "president," and "senior vice-president." Actual titles vary from one organization to another and are not always a reliable guide to membership in the highest management classification.2

As can be seen from this description, a distinction exists between those who have the authority to devise, implement and control strategic and operational policies (top and middle managers) and those whose task is simply to ensure that such policies are carried out by the rank-and-file employees of an organization (first-level managers/supervisors). What distinguishes them from the rank-and-file employees is that they act in the interest of the employer in supervising such rank-and-file employees.

"Managerial employees" may therefore be said to fall into two distinct categories: the "managers" per se, who compose the former group described above, and the "supervisors" who form the latter group. Whether they belong to the first or the second category, managers, vis-a-vis employers, are, likewise, employees.3

The first question is whether route managers are managerial employees or supervisors.

Previous Administrative Determinations of
the Question Whether Route Managers
are Managerial Employees

It appears that this question was the subject of two previous determinations by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, in accordance with which this case was decided by the med-arbiter.

In Case No. OS-MA-10-318-91, entitled Worker's Alliance Trade Union (WATU) v. Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc., decided on November 13, 1991, the Secretary of Labor found:

On July 6, 1992, this finding was reiterated in Case No. OS-A-3-71-92. entitled In Re: Petition for Direct Certification and/or Certification Election-Route Managers/Supervisory Employees of Pepsi-Cola Products Phils. Inc., as follows:

Citing our ruling in Nasipit Lumber Co. v. National Labor Relations Commission,5 however, petitioner argues that these previous administrative determinations do not have the effect of res judicata in this case, because "labor relations proceedings" are "non-litigious and summary in nature without regard to legal technicalities."6 Nasipit Lumber Co. involved a clearance to dismiss an employee issued by the Department of Labor. The question was whether in a subsequent proceeding for illegal dismissal, the clearance was res judicata. In holding it was not, this Court made it clear that it was referring to labor relations proceedings of a non-adversary character, thus:

But the doctrine of res judicata certainly applies to adversary administrative proceedings. As early as 1956, in Brillantes v. Castro,8 we sustained the dismissal of an action by a trial court on the basis of a prior administrative determination of the same case by the Wage Administration Service, applying the principle of res judicata. Recently, in Abad v. NLRC9 we applied the related doctrine of stare decisis in holding that the prior determination that certain jobs at the Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co., were project employments was binding in another case involving another group of employees of the same company. Indeed, in Nasipit Lumber Co., this Court clarified toward the end of its opinion that "the doctrine of res judicata applies . . . to judicial or quasi judicial proceedings and not to the exercise of administrative powers."10 Now proceedings for certification election, such as those involved in Case No. OS-M-A-10-318-91 and Case No. OS-A-3-71-92, are quasi judicial in nature and, therefore, decisions rendered in such proceedings can attain finality.11

Thus, we have in this case an expert's view that the employees concerned are managerial employees within the purview of Art. 212 which provides:

At the very least, the principle of finality of administrative determination compels respect for the finding of the Secretary of Labor that route managers are managerial employees as defined by law in the absence of anything to show that such determination is without substantial evidence to support it. Nonetheless, the Court, concerned that employees who are otherwise supervisors may wittingly or unwittingly be classified as managerial personnel and thus denied the right of self-organization, has decided to review the record of this case.

DOLE's Finding that Route Managers are
Managerial Employees Supported by
Substantial Evidence in the Record

The Court now finds that the job evaluation made by the Secretary of Labor is indeed supported by substantial evidence. The nature of the job of route managers is given in a four-page pamphlet, prepared by the company, called "Route Manager Position Description," the pertinent parts of which read:

The plasticized card given to route managers, quoted in the separate opinion of Justice Vitug, although entitled "RM's Job Description," is only a summary of performance standards. It does not show whether route managers are managers per se or supervisors. Obviously, these performance standards have to be related to the specific tasks given to route managers in the four-page "Route Manager Position Description," and, when this is done, the managerial nature of their jobs is fully revealed. Indeed, if any, the card indicates the great latitude and discretion given to route managers — from servicing and enhancing company goodwill to supervising and auditing accounts, from trade (new business) development to the discipline, training and monitoring of performance of their respective sales teams, and so forth, — if they are to fulfill the company's expectations in the "key result areas."

Article 212(m) says that "supervisory employees are those who, in the interest of the employer, effectively recommend such managerial actions if the exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of independent judgment." Thus, their only power is to recommend. Certainly, the route managers in this case more than merely recommend effective management action. They perform operational, human resource, financial and marketing functions for the company, all of which involve the laying down of operating policies for themselves and their teams. For example, with respect to marketing, route managers, in accordance with B.1.1.1 to B.1.1.9 of the Route Managers Job Description, are charged, among other things, with expanding the dealership base of their respective sales areas, maintaining the goodwill of current dealers, and distributing the company's various promotional items as they see fit. It is difficult to see how supervisors can be given such responsibility when this involves not just the routine supervision of operating employees but the protection and expansion of the company's business vis-a-vis its competitors.

While route managers do not appear to have the power to hire and fire people (the evidence shows that they only "recommended" or "endorsed" the taking of disciplinary action against certain employees), this is because this
is a function of the Human Resources or Personnel Department of the company.14 And neither should it be presumed that just because they are given set benchmarks to observe, they are ipso facto supervisors. Adequate control methods (as embodied in such concepts as "Management by Objectives [MBO]" and "performance appraisals") which require a delineation of the functions and responsibilities of managers by means of ready reference cards as here, have long been recognized in management as effective tools for keeping businesses competitive.

This brings us to the second question, whether the first sentence of Art. 245 of the Labor Code, prohibiting managerial employees from forming, assisting or joining any labor organization, is constitutional in light of Art. III, §8 of the Constitution which provides:

As already stated, whether they belong to the first category (managers per se) or the second category (supervisors), managers are employees. Nonetheless, in the United States, as Justice Puno's separate opinion notes, supervisors have no right to form unions. They are excluded from the definition of the term "employee" in §2(3) of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947.15 In the Philippines, the question whether managerial employees have a right of self-organization has arisen with respect to first-level managers or supervisors, as shown by a review of the course of labor legislation in this country.

Before the promulgation of the Labor Code in 1974, the field of labor relations was governed by the Industrial Peace Act (R.A. No. 875).

In accordance with the general definition above, this law defined "supervisor" as follows:

For its part, the Supreme Court upheld in several of its decisions the right of supervisors to organize for purposes of labor relations.18

Although it had a definition of the term "supervisor," the Industrial Peace Act did not define the term "manager." But, using the commonly-understood concept of "manager," as above stated, it is apparent that the law used the term "supervisors" to refer to the sub-group of "managerial employees" known as front-line managers. The other sub-group of "managerial employees," known as managers per se, was not covered.

However, in Caltex Filipino Managers and Supervisors Association v. Court of Industrial Relations,19 the right of all managerial employees to self-organization was upheld as a general proposition, thus:

Actually, the case involved front-line managers or supervisors only, as the plantilla of employees, quoted in the main opinion,21 clearly indicates:

Thus, the dictum in the Caltex case which allowed at least for the theoretical unionization of top and middle managers by assimilating them with the supervisory group under the broad phrase "managerial personnel," provided the lynchpin for later laws denying the right of self-organization not only to top and middle management employees but to front line managers or supervisors as well. Following the Caltex case, the Labor Code, promulgated in 1974 under martial law, dropped the distinction between the first and second sub-groups of managerial employees. Instead of treating the terms "supervisor" and "manager" separately, the law lumped them together and called them "managerial employees," as follows:

The definition shows that it is actually a combination of the commonly understood definitions of both groups of managerial employees, grammatically joined by the phrase "and/or."

This general definition was perhaps legally necessary at that time for two reasons. First, the 1974 Code denied supervisors their right to self-organize as theretofore guaranteed to them by the Industrial Peace Act. Second, it stood the dictum in the Caltex case on its head by prohibiting all types of managers from forming unions. The explicit general prohibition was contained in the then Art. 246 of the Labor Code.

The practical effect of this synthesis of legal concepts was made apparent in the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code which the Department of Labor promulgated on January 19, 1975. Book V, Rule II, §11 of the Rules provided:

The Department of Labor continued to use the term "supervisory unions" despite the demise of the legal definition of "supervisor" apparently because these were the unions of front line managers which were then allowed as a result of the statutory grant of the right of self-organization under the Industrial Peace Act. Had the Department of Labor seen fit to similarly ban unions of top and middle managers which may have been formed following the dictum in Caltex, it obviously would have done so. Yet it did not, apparently because no such unions of top and middle managers really then existed.

This was the law as it stood at the time the Constitutional Commission considered the draft of Art. III, §8. Commissioner Lerum sought to amend the draft of what was later to become Art. III, §8 of the present Constitution:

Lerum thus anchored his proposal on the fact that (1) government employees, supervisory employees, and security guards, who had the right to organize under the Industrial Peace Act, had been denied this right by the Labor Code, and (2) there was a need to reinstate the right of these employees. In consonance with his objective to reinstate the right of government, security, and supervisory employees to organize, Lerum then made his proposal:

The question is what Commissioner Lerum meant in seeking to "automatically abolish" the then Art. 246 of the Labor Code. Did he simply want "any kind of wording as long as it will amount to absolute recognition of private sector employees, without exception, to organize"?26 Or, did he instead intend to have his words taken in the context of the cause which moved him to propose the amendment in the first place, namely, the denial of the right of supervisory employees to organize, because he said, "We are afraid that without any corresponding provision covering the private sector, security guards, supervisory employees or majority [of] employees will still be excluded, and that is the purpose of this amendment"?27

It would seem that Commissioner Lerum simply meant to restore the right of supervisory employees to organize. For even though he spoke of the need to "abolish" Art. 246 of the Labor Code which, as already stated, prohibited "managerial employees" in general from forming unions, the fact was that in explaining his proposal, he repeatedly referred to "supervisory employees" whose right under the Industrial Peace Act to organize had been taken away by Art. 246. It is noteworthy that Commissioner Lerum never referred to the then definition of "managerial employees" in Art. 212(m) of the Labor Code which put together, under the broad phrase "managerial employees," top and middle managers and supervisors. Instead, his repeated use of the term "supervisory employees," when such term then was no longer in the statute books, suggests a frame of mind that remained grounded in the language of the Industrial Peace Act.

Nor did Lerum ever refer to the dictum in Caltex recognizing the right of all managerial employees to organize, despite the fact that the Industrial Peace Act did not expressly provide for the right of top and middle managers to organize. If Lerum was aware of the Caltex dictum, then his insistence on the use of the term "supervisory employees" could only mean that he was excluding other managerial employees from his proposal. If, on the other hand, he was not aware of the Caltex statement sustaining the right to organize to top and middle managers, then the more should his repeated use of the term "supervisory employees" be taken at face value, as it had been defined in the then Industrial Peace Act.

At all events, that the rest of the Commissioners understood his proposal to refer solely to supervisors and not to other managerial employees is clear from the following account of Commissioner Joaquin G. Bernas, who writes:

In sum, Lerum's proposal to amend Art. III, §8 of the draft Constitution by including labor unions in the guarantee of organizational right should be taken in the context of statements that his aim was the removal of the statutory ban against security guards and supervisory employees joining labor organizations. The approval by the Constitutional Commission of his proposal can only mean, therefore, that the Commission intended the absolute right to organize of government workers, supervisory employees, and security guards to be constitutionally guaranteed. By implication, no similar absolute constitutional right to organize for labor purposes should be deemed to have been granted to top-level and middle managers. As to them the right of self-organization may be regulated and even abridged conformably to Art. III, §8.

Finally, the question is whether the present ban against managerial employees, as embodied in Art. 245 (which superseded Art. 246) of the Labor Code, is valid.ℒαwρhi৷ This provision reads:

This provision is the result of the amendment of the Labor Code in 1989 by R.A. No. 6715, otherwise known as the Herrera-Veloso Law. Unlike the Industrial Peace Act or the provisions of the Labor Code which it superseded, R.A. No. 6715 provides separate definitions of the terms "managerial" and "supervisory employees," as follows:

Although the definition of "supervisory employees" seems to have been unduly restricted to the last phrase of the definition in the Industrial Peace Act, the legal significance given to the phrase "effectively recommends" remains the same. In fact, the distinction between top and middle managers, who set management policy, and front-line supervisors, who are merely responsible for ensuring that such policies are carried out by the rank and file, is articulated in the present definition.30 When read in relation to this definition in Art. 212(m), it will be seen that Art. 245 faithfully carries out the intent of the Constitutional Commission in framing Art. III, §8 of the fundamental law.

Nor is the guarantee of organizational right in Art. III, §8 infringed by a ban against managerial employees forming a union. The right guaranteed in Art. III, §8 is subject to the condition that its exercise should be for purposes "not contrary to law." In the case of Art. 245, there is a rational basis for prohibiting managerial employees from forming or joining labor organizations. As Justice Davide, Jr., himself a constitutional commissioner, said in his ponencia in Philips Industrial Development, Inc. v. NLRC:31

To be sure, the Court in Philips Industrial was dealing with the right of confidential employees to organize. But the same reason for denying them the right to organize justifies even more the ban on managerial employees from forming unions. After all, those who qualify as top or middle managers are executives who receive from their employers information that not only is confidential but also is not generally available to the public, or to their competitors, or to other employees. It is hardly necessary to point out that to say that the first sentence of Art. 245 is unconstitutional would be to contradict the decision in that case.

Narvasa, C.J., Regalado, Romero, Bellosillo, Martinez and Purisima, JJ., concur.