G.R. No. 122226 - Concurring & Dissenting

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.

I concur with the majority that the "route managers" of private respondent Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. are managerial employees. however, I respectfully submit that contrary to the majority's holding, Article 245 of the Labor Code is unconstitutional, as it abridges Section 8, Article III of the Constitution.

Section 8, Article III of the 1987 Constitution was taken from Section 7, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution which, in turn, was lifted from Section 6, Article III of the 1935 Constitution. Section 7 of the 1973 Constitution provided as follows:

This Section was adopted in Section 7 of Proposed Resolution No. 486 of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, entitled Resolution to Incorporate in the New Constitution an Article on the Bill of Rights,1 submitted by the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations, and Human Rights, with a modification, however, consisting of the insertion of the word union between the words "associations" and "societies." Thus the proposed Section 7 provided as follows:

Commissioner Joaquin G. Bernas, in his sponsorship speech on the proposed Article on the Bill of Rights, expounded on the nature of the proposed provision, in this wise:

During the period of individual amendments, Commissioner Lerum introduced an amendment to the proposed section consisting of the insertion of the clause "WHETHER EMPLOYED BY THE STATE OR PRIVATE ESTABLISHMENTS, which, after consulting other Commissioners, he modified his proposed amendment to read: "INCLUDING THOSE EMPLOYED IN THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTORS." At that time, the section read:

Pertinently to this dispute Commissioner Lerum's intention that the amendment "automatically abolish" Articles 245 and 246 of the Labor Code. ℒαwρhi৷The Committee accepted the amendment, and there having been no objection from the floor, the Lerum amendment was approved, thus:

The Committee on Style then recommended that commas be placed after the words people and sectors, while Commissioner Lerum likewise moved to place the word unions before the word associations.4 Section 7, which was subsequently renumbered as Section 8 as presently appearing in the text ratified in the plebiscite of 2 February 1987, then read as follows:

It is then indubitably clear from the foregoing that the intent of the Constitutional Commission was to abrogate the law prohibiting managerial employees from joining, assisting, or forming unions or labor organizations. In this regard, there is absolutely no need to decipher the intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution vis-a-vis Article 245 (originally 246) of the Labor Code, there being no ambiguity or vagueness in the wording of the present Section 8, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. The provision is clear and written in simple language; neither were there any confusing debates thereon. More importantly, the purpose of Commissioner Lerum's amendments was unequivocal: he did not merely intend an implied repeal, but an express repeal of the offending article of the Labor Code. The approval of the amendments left no doubt whatsoever, as faithfully disclosed in the Records of the Constitutional Commission, that all employees meaning rank-and-file, supervisory and managerial — whether from the public or the private sectors, have the right to form unions for purposes not contrary to law.

The Labor Code referred to by Commissioner Lerum was P.D. No. 442, promulgated on 1 May 1974. With the repeal of Article 239 by Executive Order No. 111 issued on 24 December 1986,5 Article 246 (as mentioned by Commissioner Lerum) became Article 245. Thereafter, R.A. No. 6715 6 amended the new Article 245 (originally Article 246) to read, as follows:

With the abrogation of the former Article 246 of the Labor Code,8 and the constitutional prohibition against any law prohibiting managerial employees from joining, assisting or forming unions or labor organizations, the first sentence then of the present Article 245 of the Labor Code must be struck down as unconstitutional.9 However, due to an obvious conflict of interest — being closely identified with the interests of management in view of the inherent nature of their functions, duties and responsibilities — managerial employees may only be eligible to join, assist or form unions or labor organizations of their own rank, and not those of the supervisory employees nor the rank-and-file employees.

In the instant case, the petitioner's name — United Pepsi-Cola Supervisory Union (UPSU) — indubitably attests that it is a union of supervisory employees. In light of the earlier discussion, the route managers who are managerial employees, cannot join or assist UPSU. Accordingly, the Med-Arbiter and public respondent Laguesma committed no error in denying the petition for direct certification or for certification election.

I thus vote to GRANT, IN PART, the instant petition. That portion of the challenged resolution of public respondent holding that since the route managers of private respondent Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc., are managerial employees, they are "not eligible to assist, join or form a union or any other organization" should be SET ASIDE for being violative of Section 8 of Article III of the Constitution, while that portion thereof denying petitioner's appeal from the Med-Arbiter's decision dismissing the petition for direct certification or for a certification election should be AFFIRMED.