Holy Child v Sto.

Tomas (2013)
Peralta, J.
FACTS:
Petitioner school assails the petition for certification election filed by private respondent Pinag-Isang Tinig at
Lakas ng Anakpawis Holy Child Catholic School Teachers and Employees Labor union (HCCS-TELU-PIGLAS).
There are approximately 120 teachers and employees in the proposed bargaining unit.
Petitioner alleges that respondent violates Art. 245 of the Labor Code and lacks the personality to file a petition for
certification elections. The case of Toyota is cited by the petitioner and argues that the members of the union are
an inappropriate bargaining unit and lacks mutuality of interest, there being a mixture of rank-and-file and
managerial or supervisory employees.
o Among the 120 members, some are vice-principals, department heads, coordinators, supervisors, and
other non-teaching personnel along with regular teaching staff.
Respondents counter that petitioner failed to substantiate its claim that some of the members are managerial or
supervisory employees. In any case, the qualifications of the member employees may be threshed out in an
inclusion-exclusion proceeding.
Respondents also state that the teaching and non-teaching personnel have similar working conditions.
Med-Arbiter: denied the petition for certification election on the ground that the bargaining unit sought to be
represented is inappropriate.
SOLE: set aside the ruling of the Med-Arbiter and directed the conduct of two separate certification elections.
Recognized the difference between the teaching and non-teaching personnel but stated that the
inappropriateness of the bargaining unit is not a ground for a petition for certification election.
o Cited the case of University of the Philippines v Ferrer-Calleja, where the SC did not order the dismissal of
the petition of the UP Workers Union composed of academic and non-academic personnel.
CA: no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the SOLE. Toyota inapplicable since the vice-principals,
department heads, coordinators, and supervisors are not managerial employees.
o
While the CA agreed with the petitioner that the work of teaching and non-teaching personnel do not
coincide, they nevertheless found that the SOLE appropriately ordered the conduct of two separate
certification elections based on the ruling in UP v Ferrer-Calleja.
ISSUES + RULING:
WoN mixture of employees in the same bargaining unit renders the labor organization illegal. NO.
SC first invoked the Bystander Role, that certification elections are the sole concern of the employees. The
employer us merely a bystander that lacks the personality to dispute the election and has no right to interfere
therein.
As to the mixture of employees in one bargaining unit, there is no provision in the law that renders the union illegal
for having such mixture in the bargaining unit it represents.
The Court looked at the past laws that governed this situation. RA No. 875, Section 3 provided:
Individuals employed as supervisors shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of employees
under their supervision but may form separate organizations of their own.
While Sec. 11, Rule II, Book V of the Omnibus Rules provides:
Members of supervisory unions who do not fall within the definition of managerial employees shall become
eligible to join or assist the rank and file organization.
Art. 245 of the Labor Code and Sec. 1 of Rule II, Book V of the Rules meanwhile state:

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
As part of the petition for certification election, RA 6715 required the
(c) description of the bargaining unit which shall be the employer unit unless circumstances otherwise
require; and provided further, that the appropriate bargaining unit of the rank-and-file employees shall not include
supervisory employees and/or security guards
By that provision, any questioned mingling will prevent an otherwise legitimate and duly registered labor
organization from exercising its right to file a petition for certification election.

It was under the last provision that Toyota was decided, prohibiting the certification election of a union that had
managerial/supervisory and rank-and-file employees as the bargaining unit.
However, after Toyota was decided, DO No. 9, s. 1997 was issued, which deleted the requirement that
petition for certification election should indicate that he bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees has
not been mingled with supervisory employees. It provided:
Sec. 4. Forms and contents of petition. - The petition shall be in writing and under oath and shall contain, among
others, the following: x x x (c) The description of the bargaining unit.

The Supreme Court ruled in the later case of Tagaytay Highlands that a labor organization has been registered, it
may exercise all the rights and privileges of a legitimate labor organization. Any mingling between supervisory and
rank-and-file employees in its membership cannot affect its legitimacy for that is not among the grounds for
cancellation of its registration, unless such mingling was brought about by misrepresentation, false statement or
fraud under Article 239 (now 245) of the Labor Code. The Court abandoned the ruling in Dunlop and Toyota in
that case.
Moreover, the employer cannot collaterally attack the legitimacy of the union by praying for the dismissal of the
petition for certification election.
The determination of whether union membership comprises managerial and/or supervisory employees is a factual
issue that is best left for resolution in the inclusion-exclusion proceedings, which has not yet happened in this
case so still premature to pass upon.
There is also a difference between the concept of bargaining unit and union; the inappropriateness of the
bargaining unit does not remove the legitimacy of the union.
The Labor Code defines union as "any union or association of employees which exists in whole or in part for the
purpose of collective bargaining or of dealing with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment.
Meanwhile, a bargaining unit is a "group of employees of a given employer, comprised of all or less than all of the
entire body of employees, which the collective interests of all the employees, consistent with equity to the
employer, indicated to be best suited to serve reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the collective
bargaining provisions of the law."

DISPOSITION: Petition denied. SOLE decision affirmed.