SUGBUANON VS.
LAGUESMA
NOVEMBER 13, 2013 ~ VBDIAZ
G.R. No. 116194 February 2, 2000
SUGBUANON RURAL BANK, INC. v. HON. UNDERSECRETARY BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, MED-ARBITER ACHILLES MANIT, DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, REGIONAL OFFICE NO. 7, CEBU CITY, AND SUGBUANON RURAL BANK, INC.
— ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL, SUPERVISORY, OFFICE, AND TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES UNION-
TRADE UNIONS CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES
FACTS: Petitioner Sugbuanon Rural Bank, Inc., (SRBI, for brevity) is a duly-registered banking institution
with principal office in Cebu City and a branch in Mandaue City. Private respondent SRBI Association of
Professional, Supervisory, Office, and Technical Employees Union (APSOTEU) is a legitimate labor
organization affiliated with the Trade Unions Congress of the Philippines (TUCP).1âwphi1.nêt
On October 8, 1993, the DOLE Regional Office in Cebu City granted Certificate of Registration No. R0700-
9310-UR-0064 to APSOTEU-TUCP, hereafter referred to as the union.
On October 26, 1993, the union filed a petition for certification election of the supervisory employees of
SRBI. It alleged, among others, that: (1) APSOTEU-TUCP was a labor organization duly-registered with
the Labor Department; (2) SRBI employed 5 or more supervisory employees; (3) a majority of these
employees supported the petition: (4) there was no existing collective bargaining agreement (CBA)
between any union and SRBI; and (5) no certification election had been held in SRBI during the past 12
months prior to the petition.
On October 28, 1993, the Med-Arbiter gave due course to the petition. The pre-certification election
conference between SRBI and APSOTEU-TUCP was set for November 15, 1993.
On November 12, 1993, SRBI filed a motion to dismiss the union’s petition. It sought to prevent the
holding of a certification election on two grounds. First, that the members of APSOTEU-TUCP were in
fact managerial or confidential employees.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not the members of the respondent union are managerial employees and/or highly-
placed confidential employees, hence prohibited by law from joining labor organizations and engaging in
union activities.
(2) Whether or not the Med-Arbiter may validly order the holding of a certification election upon the
filing of a petition for certification election by a registered union, despite the petitioner’s appeal pending
before the DOLE Secretary against the issuance of the union’s registration.
RULING:
(1) Petitioner’s explanation does not state who among the employees has access to information
specifically relating to its labor to relations policies. Even Cashier Patricia Maluya, who serves as the
secretary of the bank’s Board of Directors may not be so classified.
Confidential employees are those who (1) assist or act in a confidential capacity, in regard (2) to persons
who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies [specifically in the field of labor
relations].9 The two criteria are cumulative, and both must be met if an employee is to be considered a
confidential employee — that is, the confidential relationship must exist between the employee and his
superior officer; and that officer must handle the prescribed responsibilities relating to labor relations.
Art. 245 of the Labor Code does not directly prohibit confidential employees from engaging in union
activities. However, under the doctrine of necessary implication, the disqualification of managerial
employees equally applies to confidential employees. The confidential-employee rule justifies exclusion
of confidential employees because in the normal course of their duties they become aware of
management policies relating to labor relations. It must be stressed, however, that when the employee
does not have access to confidential labor relations information, there is no legal prohibition against
confidential employees from forming, assisting, or joining a union.
(2) One of the rights of a legitimate labor organization under Article 242(b) of the Labor Code is the right
to be certified as the exclusive representative of all employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for
purposes of collective bargaining. Having complied with the requirements of Art. 234, it is our view that
respondent union is a legitimate labor union. Article 257 of the Labor Code mandates that a certification
election shall automatically be conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate
labor organization.16 Nothing is said therein that prohibits such automatic conduct of the certification
election if the management appeals on the issue of the validity of the union’s registration. On this score,
petitioner’s appeal was correctly dismissed.
