Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > February 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-13573 February 20, 1960 - ALHAMBRA CIGAR & CIGARETTE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, ET AL., v. ALHAMBRA EMPLOYEE’S ASSN.

107 Phil 23:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-13573. February 20, 1960.]

ALHAMBRA CIGAR & CIGARETTE MANUFACTURING COMPANY and KAPISANAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA ALHAMBRA (FOITAF), Petitioners, v. ALHAMBRA EMPLOYEE’S ASSOCIATION (PAFLU), Respondent.

Angel S. Gamboa, for Petitioners.

Cipriano Cid & Associates for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING; EMPLOYEES HAVING COMMUNITY OF INTEREST ENTITLED TO SEPARATE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNIT. — It appearing that the employees in the administrative, sales, and dispensary departments of the petitioner company, with the exception of the supervisors, security guards, and confidential employees therein, are engaged in an entirely different kind of work which does not involve production and maintenance and the places where they work are separate from those of the workers in the other department of the company, it can be said that they have a community of interest among themselves which justifies their formation or existence as a separate appropriate collective bargaining unit. The existence of such a unit will insure to said employees in the departments aforementioned the full benefit of their right to self-organization and collective bargaining and, thereby, effectuate the policies enunciated in the Industrial Peace Act (Republic Act No. 875, as amended).

2. ID.; ID.; EXTENSION OF BENEFITS UNDER EXISTING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT TO EMPLOYEES NOT COVERED BY IT, NOT IMPEDIMENT TO FORMATION OF SEPARATE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNIT BY SUCH EMPLOYEES. — While it may be true that the benefits granted under the existing collective bargaining agreements entered into between the petitioner Union and the Company were extended to, and enjoyed, by all the workers in all the departments of the company, the fact remains that those in the administrative, sales, and dispensary departments were not expressly covered, and should the company, at any time, decide not to extend to them said benefits, they cannot legally demand their extension to them, as they would have nothing to invoke in support of said demand. In fine, they have no legal right to said benefit enforceable before the courts.


D E C I S I O N


BARRERA, J.:


This is a petition for review on certiorari the order of the Court of Industrial Relations (in Case No. 392-MC) dated December 12, 1956, and its resolution en banc of December 27, 1957.

Respondent Alhambra Employees’ Association (PAFLU) filed with the above-mentioned court a petition, which was later amended, praying that it be certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for all the employees, 82 in number, in the administrative, sales, engineering, and dispensary departments of petitioner Alhambra Cigar & Cigarette Manufacturing Company. Petitioner company, later joined by the co-petitioner Kapisanan Ng Manggagawa sa Alhambra (FOITAF), as Intervenor, opposed the petition, on the ground that there was in force an existing collective bargaining agreement covering all the workers of the company, signed by the latter and Intervenor union.

The case was referred to Hearing Examiner Antonio P. Amistad who, on November 19, 1956, submitted his report to the court, which reads as follows:clubjuris

REPORT

"This concerns an amended petition filed by the Alhambra Employees’ Association (PAFLU), a legitimate labor organization, in which it is prayed that said union be certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for all the employees paid either on the monthly, daily or commission basis in the administrative, sales, engineering and dispensary departments of the Alhambra Cigar and Cigarette Manufacturing Company, a business concern existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Philippines, engaged in the manufacture of cigars and cigarettes, with postal address at 31 Tayuman Street, Tondo, Manila.

"The petition is opposed by the Company and another legitimate labor organization, the Federation Obrera de la Industria Tabaquera de Filipinas (FOITAF). The opposition is based principally on two grounds, namely, that the appropriate collective bargaining unit is the employer unit not the smaller unit sought by petitioner and that there is an existing collective bargaining agreement between the company and the FOITAF which constitute a bar to the instant certification proceeding.

"The first issue to be resolved by the Court concerns the composition of the appropriate unit. The petitioner contends that all the employees paid on the monthly, daily or commission basis in the administrative, sales, engineering, and dispensary departments constitute an appropriate unit, while both the company and the FOITAF maintain that the appropriate unit is the employer unit. While the two contending unions as well as the company were agreed that confidential employees should be excluded, they could not agreed on the exclusion or inclusion of the technical employees. The FOITAF’S stand is that technical employees should also be excluded, while the petitioner favors their inclusion. The company on the other hand, manifested that it did not care whether the technical employees are included or not in the bargaining unit.

"The evidence shows that there are eight departments existing in the company, namely, the administrative department, manlalasi or raw leaf department, cigar department, cigarette department, engineering department and garage, precinteria department, dispensary, and sales department.

"In the manlalasi or raw leaf department, the work consists mainly of classifying the tobacco leaves removing the middle ribs from them. The cigar and cigarette departments are engaged in producing cigars and cigarettes while the packing of the finished products is done in the precinteria department. The work in the engineering department and garage is devoted to operation of the machines and the maintenance of the machineries, buildings, garage as well as all the vehicles used by the company. The employees in the sales department are engaged in selling the products of the company and they perform their duties outside the factory premises. The dispensary department consists of one doctor and two nurses. In the administrative department are found the office personnel, watchmen, porters and cleaners.

"Judging from the nature of the work performed in the different departments, the workers in the manlalasi, cigar, cigarette, precinteria and engineering departments may be considered as production and maintenance employees because they are engaged directly in producing the manufactured products of the company and in operating and maintaining its machines, buildings and vehicles.

"On the other hand the employees in the administrative, sales and dispensary departments are engaged in an entirely different kind of work which does not involve production and maintenance and the places where they work are separate from those of the workers in the other departments. It can be said therefore that they have a community of interest among themselves which is entirely separate and distinct from the production and maintenance employees. This paramount consideration has led the undersigned to conclude that all the employees in the administrative, sales and dispensary departments constitute an appropriate collective bargaining unit subject to the exclusions which are discussed hereinbelow. However, petitioner’s contention that the employee in the engineering department ang garage should also be included in said unit is without merit. As pointed out earlier, the workers in said department are maintenance employees and for purposes of collective bargaining it is the better policy to group together production and maintenance employees.

"The second issue which was raised in this case is whether or not the collective bargaining agreement entered into between the company and the FOITAF constitutes a bar to the instant proceeding. Said agreement, marked as Exh.’3-Alhambra’, Exh.’S-Petitioner’, and Exh.’1-Intervenor’, was entered into on Aug. 18, 1954 and it was stipulated that the agreement would be effective until June 30, 1955. The effectivity was extended to June 30, 1957, pursuant to a subsequent agreement entered into on Feb. 24, 1955. (Exh.’3-A Alhambra’, Exh.’T-Petitioner’, and Exh.’2-Intervenor’.)

"After a close examination of the agreement in question, the undersigned notes that in so far as the fixing of the terms and conditions of employment is concerned it did not expressly cover the employees in the administrative, dispensary and sales departments. As a matter of fact, the recognition clause states that the FOITAF was acting ‘in representation of all the laborers of the ‘ALHAMBRA’ and certainly it can not be said that all the employees in the administrative, dispensary and sales departments are laborers’. Furthermore, almost all the persons referred to with definite particularity in paragraph 6 of the agreement (Exh.’3-Alhambra’.) are those working in the production and maintenance departments. The same observation applies to the two subsequent agreements marked as Exh.’3-A Alhambra’ and Exh.’3-B Alhambra’. It was only in the agreement entered into on June 25, 1956 (Exh.’3-C Alhambra’, Exh.’V- Petitioner’, and Exh.’4-Intervenor’) that employees in the administrative department were specifically covered. The coverage, however, was extended only to the security guards. Under the premises, the undersigned is of the opinion that the interests of the employees in the administrative, dispensary, and sales departments with the exception of the security guards are not adequately protected in the collective bargaining agreement between the company and the FOITAF and said agreement therefore could not be validly invoked as a bar to the instant proceeding.

"The evidence also shows that there are 45 employees in the administrative department, 3 in the dispensary, and 19 in the sales department so that all in all there are 67 employees in said departments. The evidence for the company shows that the watchmen and porters in the administrative department numbering 16 in all are security guards. (See Exh.’3-C Alhambra’). Following established precedents of this Court, these security guards should be excluded from the bargaining unit sought to be represented by the petitioner. In the sales department there are 2 sales supervisors, who should also be excluded pursuant to a specific provision of Rep. Act No. 875. Although it was agreed upon by all the parties that confidential employees should also be excluded, the evidence does not indicate the particular employees whose positions are confidential. Excluding the 16 security guards and 2 sales supervisors, there are 49 employees who are eligible for inclusion in the appropriate unit in this case.

"The evidence also conclusively shows that 23 employees in the administrative department, 2 in the dispensary, and 16 in the sales department or a total of 41 are members of the petitioning union. There is no question therefore that said union has been duly selected or designated as the exclusive representative for collective bargaining purposes by the majority of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit.

"In view of all the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that the Alhambra Employees Association (PAFLU) be certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees in the administrative, dispensary and sales departments of the Alhambra Cigar and Cigarette Manufacturing Company with the exception of supervisors, security guards and confidential employees." (Italics supplied.)

On December 12, 1956, the court, by a vote of three to one, with one abstention, adopted the above-quoted report in toto, in its order which, in part, states:ClubJuris

"The foregoing report has been found to be completely in accordance with the evidence and the entire record of the case, and the conclusions therein contained are hereby adopted in toto.

"Wherefore, and as recommended by the Hearing Examiner, the Alhambra Employees’ Association (PAFLU) is hereby certified as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of all the employees in the administrative, dispensary, and sales departments of the Alhambra Cigar and Cigarette Manufacturing Company with the exception of supervisors, security guards and confidential employees. So ordered." clubjuris

Their motions for reconsideration of the foregoing order having been denied, the Company and FOITAF filed the present petition for review.

Petitioners claim that the lower court erred (1) in holding that all the employees in the administrative, sales, and dispensary departments of petitioner company, with the exception of the supervisors, security guards, and confidential employees therein, constitute an appropriate separate collective bargaining unit; (2) in holding that the collective bargaining agreement between petitioner company and petitioner labor union (FOITAF) did not cover said employees; and (3) in including in said independent unit the physician and two nurses composing the dispensary department.

1. In arriving at the conclusion that all the employees in the administrative, sales, and dispensary departments of the company, with the exception of the supervisors, security guards, and confidential employees therein, constitute an appropriate collective bargaining unit, the lower court considered the fact that said employees are engaged in "an entirely different kind of work" which does not involve production and maintenance, and the additional fact that the places where they work are separate from those of the workers in the other departments of the company.

We find no reason to disturb said finding of the lower court. There can hardly be any doubt that, since said employees in the administrative, sales, and dispensary departments perform work which have nothing to do with production and maintenance, unlike those in the raw leaf (manlalasi), cigar, cigarette, packing (precinteria), and engineering and garage departments whose functions involve production and maintenance, they have a community of interest which justifies their formation or existence as a separate appropriate collective bargaining unit. (II Teller, Labor Disputes and Collective Bargaining, 925-931.) 1 The existence of such a unit will, it is believed, insure to said employees in the three departments the full benefit of their right to self-organization and collective bargaining and, thereby, effectuate the policies enunciated in the Industrial Peace Act 2

2. Examination of the collective bargaining agreement entered into between the company and FOITAF on August 18, 1954 (Exh. 3-Alhambra) and the agreements entered subsequent thereto between the same parties dated February 24, 1955 (Exh. 3-A Alhambra) and August 25, 1955 (Exh. 3-B Alhambra) discloses beyond doubt that they expressly cover only the workers in the five departments of the company, namely, the raw leaf (manlalasi), cigar, cigarette, packing (precinteria) and engineering and garage departments. Exhibits 3 Alhambra and 3-A Alhambra are conspicuous for their repeated use of the term "laborers." In no single instance is the term "employees" mentioned to convey the idea that those in the other three departments, namely, the administrative, sales, and dispensary departments, are also covered by said agreements. Exhibit 3-B Alhambra consistently uses the term "Precinteros", referring to the workers in the packing or precinteria department. It is, furthermore, significant to note that the workers who are divided into several categories in Exhibit 3-Alhambra, all belong to the five-mentioned departments of the company, which again unmistakably conveys the impression that said agreement was not intended to cover or apply to those workers or employees in the administrative, sales, and dispensary departments.

We agree with the observation of the lower court that it is only in Exhibit 3-C Alhambra (executed on June 25, 1956) that the employees in the three-mentioned departments were expressly covered. Nevertheless, said coverage was limited or confined only to the security guards in said departments.

While it may be true the benefits granted under said agreements were extended to, and enjoyed by, all the workers in all the eight departments of the company, the fact remains that those in the administrative, sales, and dispensary departments were not expressly covered and, should the company, at any time, decide not to extend to them said benefits, they can not legally demand their extension to them as they would have nothing to invoke in support of said demand. In fine, they have no legal right to said benefits enforceable before the courts.

3. Although the physician and two nurses in the dispensary department perform functions which may properly be designated as technical or professional, the lower court, in our opinion, did not err in including them in the bargaining unit sought to be represented by respondent labor organization, since, as already stated, they are performing functions which have nothing to do with production and maintenance and, consequently, have a community of interest with the employees in the administrative and sales department.

Wherefore, finding no reversible error in the order and resolution of the court a quo appealed from, the same are hereby affirmed in all respects, with costs against the petitioners. So ordered.

Paras, C.J. Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. See alo Rothenberg on Labor Relations, 489-490; Democratic Labor Association v. Cebu Stevedoring Company, Et Al., G. R. No. L-10321, prom. February 28, 1958.

2. Rep. Act No. 875, as amended.




Back to Home | Back to Main


ClubJuris.Com



February-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12802 February 11, 1960 - DALMACIO CABAÑERO, ET AL., v. MARCELO TESORO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-13125 February 13, 1960 - PEDRO C. CAMUS v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    107 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. L-13134 February 13, 1960 - MARIA C. ROA v. SEGUNDA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    107 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. L-12322 February 19, 1960 - JOSE G. GENEROSO v. GSIS

    107 Phil 13

  • G.R. No. L-12525 February 19, 1960 - FRANCISCO A. TAN v. PEDRO M. GlMENEZ

    107 Phil 17

  • G.R. No. L-13573 February 20, 1960 - ALHAMBRA CIGAR & CIGARETTE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, ET AL., v. ALHAMBRA EMPLOYEE’S ASSN.

    107 Phil 23

  • G.R. No. L-12791 February 23, 1960 - RAMON L. CHENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    107 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. L-13553 February 23, 1960 - JOSE DE OCAMPO v. SERAFINA FLORENCIANO

    107 Phil 35

  • G.R. No. L-15096 February 23, 1960 - ENGRACIA P. LUCHAYCO, ET AL., v. HON. FELIXBERTO IMPERIAL REYES, ETC., ET AL.

    107 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. L-12718 February 24, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OLIMPIO CORPUZ and JULIAN SERQUIÑA

    107 Phil 44

  • G.R. Nos. L-14284-14285 February 24, 1960 - WILLIAM POMEROY, ET AL., v. THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, ET AL.

    107 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. L-9759-61 February 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOMAS MOQUIADI, ET AL.

    107 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. L-12845 February 25, 1960 - ZAMBALES CHROMITE MINING CO. v. JOSE ROBLES, ET AL.

    107 Phil 69

  • G.R. No. L-13161 February 25, 1960 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    107 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-13280 February 25, 1960 - LAND TENURE ADMINISTRATION, ET AL. v. HONORABLE HIGINIO B. MACADAEG ETC., AND LIM

    107 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-13828 February 25, 1960 - ELADIA RAPATAN, ET AL., v. ELPIDIO CHICANO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. L-13964 February 25, 1960 - VICENTE ASPERILLA, ET AL., v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

    107 Phil 91

  • G.R. No. L-14148 February 25, 1960 - ALFREDO PUA v. EULOGIO LAPITAN

    107 Phil 95

  • G.R. No. L-14322 February 25, 1960 - In re: TESTATE ESTATE of PETRONILA TAMPOY v. DIOSDADA ALBERASTINE

    107 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. L-11074 February 27, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFELINO ZAPATA and FERNANDICO TUBADEZA

    107 Phil 103

  • G.R. No. L-13048 February 27, 1960 - STANDARD-VACUUM OIL CO., v. ANITA TAN and COURT OF APPEALS

    107 Phil 109

  • G.R. No. L-9920 February 29, 1960 - BARTOLOME E. SAN DIEGO v. THE MUNICIPALITY OF NAUJAN, PROVINCE OF ORIENTAL MINDORO

    107 Phil 118

  • G.R. No. L-10184 February 29, 1960 - FELIX V. VALENCIA v. AUDITOR GENERAL, and GSIS

    107 Phil 128

  • G.R. Nos. L-11319-20; L-13504 & L-13507-8 February 29, 1960 - ANTONIO TUASON, JR., ETC. v. AUGUSTO DE ASIS

    107 Phil 131

  • G.R. Nos. L-11933-34 February 29, 1960 - LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO. v. M. RUIZ HIGHWAY TRANSIT, INC.

    107 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. L-12493 February 29, 1960 - GREGORIO I. ALCANTARA, ET AL. v. NORBERTO S. AMORANTO

    107 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. L-12727 February 29, 1960 - MANILA JOCKEY CLUB, INC. v. GAMES AND AMUSEMENTS BOARD, ET AL.

    107 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. L-12827 February 29, 1960 - SMITH, BELL & CO., LTD., v. PHILIPPINE MILLING CO.

    107 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. L-12863 February 29, 1960 - BERNARDO BENEDICTO v. IGNACIO CHIONG OSMEÑA

    107 Phil 163

  • G.R. Nos. L-12911-12 & L-13073-74 February 29, 1960 - PAZ MARQUEZ BENITEZ v. AMADOR D. SANTOS

    107 Phil 167

  • G.R. No. L-12942 February 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICANOR MACATANGAY and DAVID CUNANAN

    107 Phil 188

  • G.R. No. L-12964 February 29, 1960 - SOL SAMONTE, ET AL. v. JUANA SAMBILON, ET AL.

    107 Phil 198

  • G.R. No. L-13006 February 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    107 Phil 201

  • G.R. No. L-13115 February 29, 1960 - TRINIDAD DE LOS REYES VDA. DE SANTIAGO v. ANGELA S. REYES and WCC

    107 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. L-13231 February 29, 1960 - ALBERTO INESIN, ET AL. v. HONORABLE MATEO CANONOY, ETC., AND BENODIN

    107 Phil 217

  • G.R. No. L-13284 February 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO COLMENARES and CELSO LLORICO

    107 Phil 220

  • G.R. No. L-13367 February 29, 1960 - DAVID INCO, ET AL., v. GODOFREDO ENRIQUEZ

    107 Phil 226

  • G.R. No. L-13453 February 29, 1960 - ALLISON J. GIBBS, ET AL., v. COLL. OF INTERNAL REVENUE AND COURT OF TAX APPEALS

    107 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. L-13474 February 29, 1960 - APOLONIO NICDAO v. GSIS, ET AL.

    107 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. L-13722 February 29, 1960 - QUIRICO ALIMAJEN v. PASCUAL VALERA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 244

  • G.R. No. L-13804 February 29, 1960 - PONCIANO PUNZALAN v. NICOLAS PAPICA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 246

  • G.R. No. L-13884 February 29, 1960 - NORTHERN MOTORS, INC. v. PRINCE LINE, ET AL.

    107 Phil 253

  • G.R. No. L-13922 February 29, 1960 - SEVERINO PONCE v. Co KING LIAN

    107 Phil 263

  • G.R. No. L-13927 February 29, 1960 - TRINIDAD MANAOIS-SALONGA v. IMELDA V. NATIVIDAD

    107 Phil 268

  • G.R. No. L-14120 February 29, 1960 - ASSOCIATED WATCHMEN AND SECURITY UNION v. HON. JUDGES JUAN LANTING, ETC., ET AL.

    107 Phil 275

  • G.R. No. L-14226 February 29, 1960 - MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO., INC. v. JOSE M. LUNA

    107 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. L-14360 February 29, 1960 - JOSE BERNABE & CO., INC. v. DELGADO BROTHERS, INC.

    107 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. L-14389 February 29, 1960 - AURORA RODRIGUEZ, ET AL., v. CITY OF CABANATUAN

    107 Phil 293

  • G.R. No. L-14407 February 29, 1960 - ANACLETO ALZATE, ETC., v. BENIGNO ALDANA, ETC., ET AL.

    107 Phil 298

  • G.R. No. L-14577 February 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES C. GALSIM

    107 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. L-14651 February 29, 1960 - HACIENDA SAPANG PALAY TENANTS’ LEAGUE, INC. and DOMINADOR GUEVAN v. NICASIO YATCO, ETC.

    107 Phil 306