803 Phil. 708
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
WHEREFORE, the appeal filed by the Asian Institute of Management Faculty Association (AIMFA) is GRANTED. The Order dated 30 August 2007 of DOLE-NCR Mediator-Arbiter Michael T. Parado is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.Meanwhile, in DOLE Case No. NCR-OD-0707-001-LRD, an Order[14] dated February 16, 2009 was issued by DOLE-NCR Regional Director Raymundo G. Agravante granting AIM's petition for cancellation of respondent's certificate of registration and ordering its delisting from the roster of legitimate labor organizations. This Order was appealed by respondent before the Bureau of Labor Relations[15] (BLR), which, in a December 29, 2009 Decision,[16] reversed the same and ordered respondent's retention in the roster of legitimate labor organizations. The BLR held that the grounds relied upon in the petition for cancellation are not among the grounds authorized under Article 239 of the Labor Code,[17] and that respondent's members are not managerial employees. Petitioner moved to reconsider, but was rebuffed in a March 18, 2010 Resolution.[18]
Accordingly, let the entire records of the case be remanded to DOLE-NCR for the conduct of a certification election among the faculty members of the Asian Institute of Management (AIM), with the following choices:
1. ASIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT FACULTY ASSOCIATION (AIMFA); and
2. No Union.
SO ORDERED.[13]
AIM insists that the members of its tenure-track faculty are managerial employees, and therefore, ineligible to join, assist or form a labor organization. It ascribes grave abuse of discretion on SOLE[20] for its rash conclusion that the members of said tenure-track faculty are not managerial employees solely because the faculty's actions are still subject to evaluation, review or final approval by the board of trustees ("BOT"). AIM argues that the BOT does not manage the day-to-day affairs, nor the making and implementing of policies of the Institute, as such functions are vested with the tenure-track faculty.Respondent sought reconsideration, but was denied. It thus instituted a Petition for Review on Certiorari before this Court on July 4, 2011. The Petition, docketed as G.R. No. 197089, remains pending to date.
We agree.
Article 212(m) of the Labor Code defines managerial employees as:'ART. 212. Definitions. - x x xThere are, therefore, two (2) kinds of managerial employees under Art. 212(m) of the Labor Code. Those who 'lay down x x x management policies', such as the Board of Trustees, and those who 'execute management policies and/or hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees'.
(m) 'Managerial employee' is one who is vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees. 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. All employees not falling within any of the above definitions are considered rank-and-file employees for purposes of this Book.'x x x x x x x x x
On its face, the SOLE's opinion is already erroneous because in claiming that the 'test of supervisory' or 'managerial status' depends on whether a person possesses authority to act in the interest of his employer in the matter specified in Article 212(m) of the Labor Code and Section 1(m) of its Implementing Rules, he obviously was referring to the old definition of a managerial employee. Such is evident in his use of 'supervisory or managerial status', and reference to 'Section 1(m) of its Implementing Rules'. For presently, as aforequoted in Article 212(m) of the Labor Code and as amended by Republic Act 6715 which took effect on March 21, 1989, a managerial employee is already different from a supervisory employee. x x xx x x x x x x x x
In further opining that a managerial employee is one whose 'authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of independent judgment', a description which fits now a supervisory employee under Section 1(t), Rule I, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, it then follows that the SOLE was not aware of the change in the law and thus gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in concluding that AIM's 'tenure-track' faculty are not managerial employees.
SOLE further committed grave abuse of discretion when it concluded that said tenure-track faculty members are not managerial employees on the basis of a 'footnote' in AIM's Policy Manual, which provides that 'the policy[-]making authority of the faculty members is merely recommendatory in nature considering that the faculty standards they formulate are still subject to evaluation, review or final approval by the [AIM]'s Board of Trustees'. x x xx x x x x x x x x
Clearly, AIM's tenure-track faculty do not merely recommend faculty standards. They 'determine all faculty standards', and are thus managerial employees. The standards' being subjected to the approval of the Board of Trustees would not make AIM's tenure-track faculty non-managerial because as earlier mentioned, managerial employees are now of two categories: (1) those who 'lay down policies', such as the members of the Board of Trustees, and those who 'execute management policies (etc.)', such as AIM's tenure-track faculty.x x x x x x x x x
It was also grave abuse of discretion on the part of the SOLE when he opined that AIM's tenure-track faculty members are not managerial employees, relying on an impression that they were subjected to rigid observance of regular hours of work as professors. x x xx x x x x x x x x
More importantly, it behooves the SOLE to deny AFA's appeal in light of the February 16, 2009 Order of Regional Director Agravante delisting AFA from the roster of legitimate labor organizations. For, only legitimate labor organizations are given the right to be certified as sole and exclusive bargaining gent in an establishment.x x x x x x x x x
Here, the SOLE committed grave abuse of discretion by giving due course to AFA's petition for certification election, despite the fact that: (1) AFA's members are managerial employees; and (2) AFA is not a legitimate labor organization. These facts rendered AFA ineligible, and without any right to file a petition for certification election, the object of which is to determine the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of qualified AIM employees.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated February 20, 2009 and Resolution dated May 4, 2009 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Order dated August 30, 2007 of Mediator-Arbiter Parado is hereby REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.[21] (Emphasis in the original)
The petition lacks meritPetitioner filed its Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the CA via its June 27, 2013 Resolution. Hence, the instant Petition.x x x x x x x x x
It is therefore incumbent upon the Institute to prove that the BLR committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the questioned Decision. Towards this end, AIM must lay the basis by showing that Article 239. Grounds for cancellation of union registration. The following may constitute grounds for cancellation of union registration:Article 238 of the Labor Code provides that the enumeration of the grounds for cancellation of union registration, is exclusive; in other words, no other grounds for cancellation is acceptable, except for the three (3) grounds stated in Article 239. The scope of the grounds for cancellation has been explained -
(a) Misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection with the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto, the minutes of ratification, and the list of members who took part in the ratification;
(b) Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud in connection with the election of officers, minutes of the election of officers, and the list of voters;
(c) Voluntary dissolution by the members.For the purpose of de-certifying a union such as respondent, it must be shown that there was misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection with the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto; the minutes of ratification; or, in connection with the election of officers, the minutes of the election of officers, the list of voters, or failure to submit these doctm1ents together with the list of the newly elected-appointed officers and their postal addresses to the BLR.A cursory reading of the Petition shows that AIM did NOT allege any specific act of fraud or misrepresentation committed by AFA. What is clear is that the Institute seeks the cancellation of the registration of AFA based on Article 245 of the Labor Code on the ineligibility of managerial employees to form or join labor unions. Unfortunately for the petitioner, even assuming that there is a violation of Article 245, such violation will not result in the cancellation of the certificate of registration of a labor organization.
The bare fact that two signatures appeared twice on the list of those who participated in the organizational meeting would not, to our mind, provide a valid reason to cancel respondent's certificate of registration. The cancellation of a union's registration doubtless has an impairing dimension on the right of labor to self-organization. For fraud and misrepresentation to be grounds tor cancellation of union registration under the Labor Code, the nature of the fraud and misrepresentation must be grave and compelling enough to vitiate the consent of a majority of union members.[23]
In this regard, it has also been held that:
Another factor which militates against the veracity of the allegations in the Sinumpaang Petisyon is the lack of particularities on how, when and where respondent union perpetrated the alleged fraud on each member. Such details are crucial for, in the proceedings for cancellation of union registration on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation, what needs to be established is that the specific act or omission of the union deprived the complaining employees-members of their right to choose.[24]
It should be stressed that a Decision had already been issued by the DOLE in the Certification Election case; and the Decision ordered the conduct of a certification election an1ong the faculty members of the Institute, basing its directive on the finding that the members of AFA were not managerial employees and are therefore eligible to form, assist and join a labor union. As a matter of fact, the certification election had already been held on October 16, 2009, albeit the results have not yet been resolved as inclusion/exclusion proceedings are still pending before the DOLE. The remedy available to the Institute is not the instant Petition, but to question the status of the individual union members of the AFA in the inclusion/exclusion proceedings pursuant to Article 245-A of the Labor Code, which reads:Article 245-A. Effect of inclusion as members of employees outside the bargaining unit. - The inclusion as union members of employees outside the bargaining unit shall not be a ground for the cancellation of the registration of the union. Said employees are automatically deemed removed from the list of membership of said union.Petitioner insists that Article 245-A is not applicable to this case as all AFA members are managerial employees. We are not persuaded.
The determination of whether any or all of the members of AFA should be considered as managerial employees is better left to the DOLE because,It has also been established that in the determination of whether or not certain employees arc managerial employees, this Court accords due respect and therefore sustains the findings of fact made by quasi-judicial agencies which are supported by substantial evidence considering their expertise in their respective fields.[25]From the discussion, it is manifestly clear that the petitioner failed to prove that the BLR committed grave abuse of discretion; consequently, the Petition must fail.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of public respondent Bureau of Labor Relations in BLR-A-C-19-3-6-09 (NCR-OD-0707-001) are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.[26] (Emphasis in the original)
x x x if a particular point or question is in issue in the second action, and the judgment will depend on the determination of that particular point or question, a former judgment between the same parties or their privies will be final and conclusive in the second if that same point or question was in issue and adjudicated in1he first suit. x x x Identity of cause of action is not required, but merely identity of issues.[31] (Citation omitted)WHEREFORE, considering that the outcome of this case depends on the resolution of the issue relative to the nature of respondent's membership pending in G.R. No. 197089, this case is ordered CONSOLIDATED with G.R. No. 197089.