530 Phil. 35
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
I highly recommend ROSENDO EBORDA, JR. as SHIFT WAREHOUSEMAN in lieu of ROMEO ARDAS who recently retired from employment.The recommendation-letter bore the approval of Rolando Cantila (Cantila), "ICO Supervisor." Personnel Officer Cesar de Ramos did not act on the recommendation, however.
Recommendee possess (sic) the necessary qualifications for the position through his experience as Sugar Checker of Product Warehouse where job functions and responsibilities is (sic) nearest to the position vacant.
For your perusal and disposition.
Thank you.
x x x x[1] (Underscoring supplied)
SECTION 4. FILLING OF VACANCIESIn 1998, a vacancy again occurred in one of the two remaining positions of shift warehouseman, the incumbent thereof having been transferred to another position in DASUCECO.
Where a vacancy arises, resulting from the creation of new positions or any other causes, preference shall be given to employees who, in the judgment of the COMPANY, possess the necessary qualifications for the position. The COMPANY shall first determine who would be the best suited or qualified for the position through the use of the established criteria of ability, efficiency, qualifications and experience in handling the job. When, in the judgment of the COMPANY, all such factors or criteria are equal, the employees whose job level is nearest to the position vacant will be given preference in filling up the same. In case of equal job levels between two or more employees, seniority shall be the deciding factor. Seniority shall be determined on the basis of the employees' length of continuous service with the COMPANY, counted from probationary employment. x x x."[2] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:On Petition for Review, the Court of Appeals, by Decision of May 30, 2000,[4] reversed the Voluntary Arbitrator's decision.
- Declaring respondents to have violated Section 4, Article III of the CBA;
- Directing respondents to effect the promotion of ROSENDO EBORDA to the position of Shift Warehouseman effective immediately;
- Directing respondents to pay ROSENDO EBORDA his salary differentials from job level 2 to job level 4 effective January 4, 1999, per agreement of the parties.[3]
The Supreme Court has, in a long line of cases, upheld the employer's management prerogative on personnel matters. In Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Employees Union v. National Labor Relations Commission (281 SCRA 509), it ruled :Their Motion for Reconsideration having been denied, petitioners lodged the present Petition for Review, contending that the appellate courtThe hiring, firing, transfer, demotion, and promotion of employees has been traditionally identified as a management prerogative subject to limitations found in the law, a collective bargaining agreement, or in general principles of fair play and justice. This is a function associated with the employer's inherent right to control and manage effectively its enterprise. Even as the law is solicitous of the welfare of employees, it must also protect the right of an employer to exercise what are clearly management prerogatives. The free will of management to conduct its own business affairs to achieve its purpose cannot be denied.Indeed, the exercise of management prerogative is valid provided it is not performed in a malicious, harsh, oppressive, vindictive or wanton manner or out of malice or spite (Great Pacific Life Employees Union vs. Great pacific Life Assurance Corporation, G.R. No. 126717, February 11, 1999).
The records show that DASUCECO's decision not to promote Eborda was based on these vital considerations: (i) that per his medical records, he was suffering from acute anxiety disorder and brief reactive psychosis, a condition likely to affect his efficiency and ability to get along with fellow workers; and (ii) he does not possess the required educational qualification for the subject position, i.e., at least college level, as he is merely a high school graduate.
On the other hand, the letter-recommendation is merely based on Eborda's "experience as Sugar Checker". It did not consider the other qualifications required for the position of shift warehouseman.
Since there is no showing of bad faith on the part of DASUCECO in refusing to promote Eborda, We rule that it validly exercised its management prerogative in accordance with the CBA and the basic tenets of justice and fair play.[7] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
. . . MUST HAVE SERIOUSLY ERRED IN RESOLVING THAT THE RECOMMENDATION OF SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES WAS INEFFECTIVE AND NOT BINDING AND OBLIGATORY ON THE PART OF THE MANAGEMENT.[8]Petitioners draw attention to the definition of Supervisory Employees under Article 212(m) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended (Labor Code of the Philippines) which goes:
ART. 212(m) x x xTo petitioners, the phrase "effectively recommend such managerial actions" in the above-quoted provision of the Labor Code should not be construed as an ordinary recommendation, like the recommendation of a politician given to one for the purpose of employment or an ordinary business transaction. The phrase should be construed, they suggest, to mean that "the management has to really act based on the recommendation of its supervisors who after all knows [sic] more about the conduct, demeanor, and work attitude of the concerned worker."[9]
. . . Supervisory employees are those who, in the interest of the employer, effectively recommend such managerial actions if the exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of independent judgment. x x x (Emphasis supplied)
Further, they invite attention to the fact that the recommendation of Hortel and Cantila for the promotion of Eborda was mainly on account of "his experience as Sugar Checker of Product Warehouse."[11]
- Holder of Bachelor['s] Degree preferably Engineering or Commerce major in accounting. If college level, at least seven (7) years experience in Sugar Warehouse activities in a Sugar Mill or Refinery.
- Preferably with experience in Warehouse activities.
- Ability to get along with fellow workers.
- With good moral character.
- Not more than 35 years old.[10] (Underscoring supplied)