Professional Documents
Culture Documents
20 Nat - L Merchandising Corp. vs. Court of Industrial Relations
20 Nat - L Merchandising Corp. vs. Court of Industrial Relations
599
and chief carpenter does not indicate more than the fact that they
are the number one mechanic, welder, painter or carpenter among
the many of the same category, show that the authority to
recommend even if present, is not effective, and not an exercise of
independent judgment as required by law.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fe75aa963460e22f5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/7
1/27/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 007
BARRERA, J.:
This petition was filed by the National Merchandising
Corporation to contest the correctness of the order of the
Court of Industrial Relations (in Case No. 857-MC), and
affirmed by the court en banc on July 21, 1961, holding
that petitioner’s 8 section chiefs are minor supervisory
employees who should be included in the appropriate
Employer’s Unit, and entitled to vote in his certification
election to be conducted for the purpose of determining the
proper bargaining agent for the employees.
Insofar as pertinent to the instant proceeding, the
following facts had been established:
Through a petition filed in the Court of Industrial
Relations, the National Merchandising Corporation asked
for its aid in ascertaining, whether the Goodwill Labor
Organization — CCLU, which had sought to bargain
collectively with it (the Company) for and in behalf of its
employees, may properly act as bargaining agent for the
latter. It was therein claimed that petitioner had in its
employ 10 supervisors, 1 confidential employee, 3
salesmen, 22 office employees, and 54 mechanics, painters,
carpenters, and laborers, and it doubts whether the
aforesaid union represents a majority thereof.
Respondent union answered maintaining its right to
represent the Company’s employees, and prayed the court
for the holding of a certification election after all the
employees entitled to vote shall have been determined.
The parties entered into trial solely to determine the
600
_______________
1 This order was affirmed by resolution of the court en banc of July 21,
1961.
601
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fe75aa963460e22f5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/7
1/27/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 007
In rejecting this claim of petitioner, also raised in the
court below, the trial judge took into account the following:
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fe75aa963460e22f5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/7
1/27/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 007
602
Petitioner now contends that neither the absence of
power to hire, discharge, promote, transfer, discipline, etc.
subordinate personnel, nor the lack of the use thereof, if
present, is determinative of the supervisory status or
classification of an employee under the Industrial Peace
Act. It is proposed that to be classified as a supervisor, it
would be sufficient that he has the power to recommend
the hiring, dismissal, promotion, disciplining, etc. of
personnel under him or responsibly direct them, which the
8 employees involved in the cases allegedly have.
It is to be noted, however, that the power to recommend,
in order to qualify an employee as a supervisor, must not
only be effective but the exercise of such authority should
not be merely of a routinary or clerical nature but should
require the use of independent judgment. In the case at bar,
it appears in the first place that, as found by the trial court,
there are no clear appointments in favor of the employees
in question including the alleged power or recommend, and
while Alfonso Panganiban, Personnel Manager of the
petitioner company, declared that these employees as
section heads could recommend the hiring, expulsion or
dismissal of the workers under their respective shops, the
fact remains that as admitted by him, no such
recommendations have ever been made by them. There is
also evidence that other employees have been appointed,
transferred, or discharged and laid-off without any
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fe75aa963460e22f5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/7
1/27/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 007
603
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fe75aa963460e22f5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/7