47. LAGUNA COLLEGE VS.

CIR 25 scra 167

FACTS: On the appropriate bargaining unit, petitioner Laguna College, changing its original stand,
proposed two separate units, namely, college unit composed of the professors and instructors in the
College, and high school unit comprising the high school teachers. On the other hand, LACTA (the union)
proposed only one unit the employer unit composing of all the teachers in the entire Laguna College.

ISSUE: WON there can be two bargaining units in this case.

HOLDING: No. From the evidence adduced, it is believed that the factors in favor of employer unit far
outweigh the reasons for the establishment of two separate bargaining units as proposed by petitioner.

It is not denied that college teachers are governed by rules and regulations of the Bureau of
Private Education (CHED, kun sa yana pa), which are different from the rules and regulations for high
school teachers; that the high school department of petitioner was organized at a different time from
the college department; that the set-up in the two departments are different; and that the high school
teachers are paid per period or subject, while the college teachers are paid on the hourly basis. But it is
not also denied that these two departments are under the control of only one board of trustees; that
they are housed in one and the same building; that there is but one cashier and only one registrar who
himself is the administrative officer of the whole Laguna College. As a matter of fact, the function of the
Administrative Officer extends even to the high school department. It is a fact that there are some
teachers involved in this case who are teaching both in the college and high school departments which is
a decisive proof of community of interest of these teachers and which negates the establishment of
two bargaining units. Besides, in the proposed two separate bargaining units, the elementary teachers
of the petitioner will be left out without a bargaining representative.


48. PHILIPS INDUSTRIAL DEVT. INC. (PIDI) VS. NLRC AND PHILIPS EMPLOYEES ORG. (PEO-FFW)
G.R. No. 88957

FACTS: The Executive Labor Arbiter rendered a decision declaring that PIDIs Division Secretaries and all
Staff of general management, personnel and industrial relations department, secretaries of audit, EDP,
financial system, are confidential employees and as such are hereby deemed excluded in the bargaining
unit for the rank and file employees of PIDI.

Respondent union PEO-FFW appealed from the decision to the NLRC. A decision was rendered
by the latter, reversing the ruling of the Executive Labor Arbiter to the effect that the aforementioned
positions excluded among the rank and file group is now being included and regarded as rank and file
and as such they can be part of the bargaining unit for rank and file employees.

ISSUE: WON the subject employees may be part of the bargaining unit for rank and file employees.

HOLDING: No. It is quite obvious that respondent NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in
reversing the decision of the Executive Labor Arbiter and in decreeing that PIDIs Service Engineers,
Sales Force, division secretaries, and all Staff of general management, personnel and industrial relations
department, secretaries of audit, EDP, financial systems are included within the rank and file bargaining
unit.

In the first place, all these employees, with the exception of the service engineers and the sales
force personnel, are confidential employees. Their classification as such is not seriously disputed by
respondent union because the five (5) previous CBAs between PIDI and PEO-FFW explicitly considered
them as confidential employees. By the very nature of their functions, they assist and act in a
confidential capacity to, or have access to confidential matters of, persons who exercise managerial
functions in the field of labor relations. As such, the rationale behind the ineligibility of managerial
employees to form, assist or join a labor union equally applies to them.


Submitted by: IAN ADRIATICO

Yours truly is begging for your indulgence for his taking part in hampering the speedy disposition of
cases. CUM CONFITENTE SPONTE, MITIUS EST AGENDUM.