THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 146206. August 1, 2011.]

SAN MIGUEL FOODS, INCORPORATED, petitioner, vs. SAN

MIGUEL CORPORATION SUPERVISORS, and EXEMPT UNION,
respondent.

DECISION

PERALTA, J : p

The issues in the present case, relating to the inclusion of employees in

supervisor levels 3 and 4 and the exempt employees in the proposed
bargaining unit, thereby allowing their participation in the certification
election; the application of the "community or mutuality of interests" test;
and the determination of the employees who belong to the category of
confidential employees, are not novel. EcTDCI

In G.R. No. 110399, entitled San Miguel Corporation Supervisors and

Exempt Union v. Laguesma , 1 the Court held that even if they handle
confidential data regarding technical and internal business operations,
supervisory employees 3 and 4 and the exempt employees of petitioner San
Miguel Foods, Inc. (SMFI) are not to be considered confidential employees,
because the same do not pertain to labor relations, particularly, negotiation
and settlement of grievances. Consequently, they were allowed to form an
appropriate bargaining unit for the purpose of collective bargaining. The
Court also declared that the employees belonging to the three different
plants of San Miguel Corporation Magnolia Poultry Products Plants in
Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis, having "community or mutuality of
interests," constitute a single bargaining unit. They perform work of the
same nature, receive the same wages and compensation, and most
importantly, share a common stake in concerted activities. It was immaterial
that the three plants have different locations as they did not impede the
operations of a single bargaining representative. 2
Pursuant to the Court's decision in G.R. No. 110399, the Department of
Labor and Employment-National Capital Region (DOLE-NCR) conducted pre-
election conferences. 3 However, there was a discrepancy in the list of
eligible voters, i.e., petitioner submitted a list of 23 employees for the San
Fernando plant and 33 for the Cabuyao plant, while respondent listed 60 and
82, respectively. 4
On August 31, 1998, Med-Arbiter Agatha Ann L. Daquigan issued an
Order 5 directing Election Officer Cynthia Tolentino to proceed with the
conduct of certification election in accordance with Section 2, Rule XII of
Department Order No. 9.
On September 30, 1998, a certification election was conducted and it
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 yielded the following results, 6 thus:
Cabuyao San Total
Plant Fernando
Plant

Yes 23 23 46
No 0 0 0
Spoiled 2 0 2
Segregated 41 35 76
——— ——— ———
Total Votes Cast 66 58 124
=== === ===

On the date of the election, September 30, 1998, petitioner filed the
Omnibus Objections and Challenge to Voters, 7 questioning the eligibility to
vote by some of its employees on the grounds that some employees do not
belong to the bargaining unit which respondent seeks to represent or that
there is no existence of employer-employee relationship with petitioner.
Specifically, it argued that certain employees should not be allowed to vote
as they are: (1) confidential employees; (2) employees assigned to the live
chicken operations, which are not covered by the bargaining unit; (3)
employees whose job grade is level 4, but are performing managerial work
and scheduled to be promoted; (4) employees who belong to the Barrio
Ugong plant; (5) non-SMFI employees; and (6) employees who are members
of other unions.
On October 21, 1998, the Med-Arbiter issued an Order directing
respondent to submit proof showing that the employees in the submitted list
are covered by the original petition for certification election and belong to
the bargaining unit it seeks to represent and, likewise, directing petitioner to
substantiate the allegations contained in its Omnibus Objections and
Challenge to Voters. 8
In compliance thereto, respondent averred that (1) the bargaining unit
contemplated in the original petition is the Poultry Division of San Miguel
Corporation, now known as San Miguel Foods, Inc.; (2) it covered the
operations in Calamba, Laguna, Cavite, and Batangas and its home base is
either in Cabuyao, Laguna or San Fernando, Pampanga; and (3) it submitted
individual and separate declarations of the employees whose votes were
challenged in the election. 9 SITCEA

Adding the results to the number of votes canvassed during the

September 30, 1998 certification election, the final tally showed that:
number of eligible voters — 149; number of valid votes cast — 121; number
of spoiled ballots — 3; total number of votes cast — 124, with 118 (i.e., 46 +
72 = 118) "Yes" votes and 3 "No" votes. 10
The Med-Arbiter issued the Resolution 11 dated February 17, 1999
directing the parties to appear before the Election Officer of the Labor
Relations Division on March 9, 1999, 10:00 a.m., for the opening of the
segregated ballots. Thereafter, on April 12, 1999, the segregated ballots
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 were opened, showing that out of the 76 segregated votes, 72 were cast for
"Yes" and 3 for "No," with one "spoiled" ballot. 12
Based on the results, the Med-Arbiter issued the Order 13 dated April
13, 1999, stating that since the "Yes" vote received 97% of the valid votes
cast, respondent is certified to be the exclusive bargaining agent of the
supervisors and exempt employees of petitioner's Magnolia Poultry Products
Plants in Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis.
On appeal, the then Acting DOLE Undersecretary, in the Resolution 14
dated July 30, 1999, in OS-A-2-70-91 (NCR-OD-M-9010-017), affirmed the
Order dated April 13, 1999, with modification that George C. Matias, Alma
Maria M. Lozano, Joannabel T. Delos Reyes, and Marilyn G. Pajaron be
excluded from the bargaining unit which respondent seeks to represent. She
opined that the challenged voters should be excluded from the bargaining
unit, because Matias and Lozano are members of Magnolia Poultry
Processing Plants Monthly Employees Union, while Delos Reyes and Pajaron
are employees of San Miguel Corporation, which is a separate and distinct
entity from petitioner.
Petitioner's Partial Motion for Reconsideration 15 dated August 14,
1999 was denied by the then Acting DOLE Undersecretary in the Order 16
dated August 27, 1999.
In the Decision 17 dated April 28, 2000, in CA-G.R. SP No. 55510,
entitled San Miguel Foods, Inc. v. The Honorable Office of the Secretary of
Labor, Bureau of Labor Relations, and San Miguel Corporation Supervisors
and Exempt Union , the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with modification the
Resolution dated July 30, 1999 of the DOLE Undersecretary, stating that
those holding the positions of Human Resource Assistant and Personnel
Assistant are excluded from the bargaining unit.
Petitioner's Motion for Partial Reconsideration 18 dated May 23, 2000
was denied by the CA in the Resolution 19 dated November 28, 2000.
Hence, petitioner filed this present petition raising the following issues:
I.
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS DEPARTED FROM JURISPRUDENCE
WHEN IT EXPANDED THE SCOPE OF THE BARGAINING UNIT DEFINED BY
THIS COURT'S RULING IN G.R. NO. 110399.

II.
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS DEPARTED FROM JURISPRUDENCE
— SPECIFICALLY, THIS COURT'S DEFINITION OF A "CONFIDENTIAL
EMPLOYEE" — WHEN IT RULED FOR THE INCLUSION OF THE "PAYROLL
MASTER" POSITION IN THE BARGAINING UNIT.

III.
WHETHER THIS PETITION IS A "REHASH" OR A "RESURRECTION" OF
THE ISSUES RAISED IN G.R. NO. 110399, AS ARGUED BY PRIVATE
RESPONDENT.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 Petitioner contends that with the Court's ruling in G.R. No. 110399 20
identifying the specific employees who can participate in the certification
election, i.e., the supervisors (levels 1 to 4) and exempt employees of San
Miguel Poultry Products Plants in Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis, the CA
erred in expanding the scope of the bargaining unit so as to include
employees who do not belong to or who are not based in its Cabuyao or San
Fernando plants. It also alleges that the employees of the Cabuyao, San
Fernando, and Otis plants of petitioner's predecessor, San Miguel
Corporation, as stated in G.R. No. 110399, were engaged in "dressed"
chicken processing, i.e., handling and packaging of chicken meat, while the
new bargaining unit, as defined by the CA in the present case, includes
employees engaged in "live" chicken operations, i.e., those who breed chicks
and grow chickens.
Respondent counters that petitioner's proposed exclusion of certain
employees from the bargaining unit was a rehashed issue which was already
settled in G.R. No. 110399. It maintains that the issue of union membership
coverage should no longer be raised as a certification election already took
place on September 30, 1998, wherein respondent won with 97% votes.
Petitioner's contentions are erroneous. In G.R. No. 110399, the Court
explained that the employees of San Miguel Corporation Magnolia Poultry
Products Plants of Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis constitute a single
bargaining unit, which is not contrary to the one-company, one-union policy.
An appropriate bargaining unit is defined as a group of employees of a given
employer, comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees,
which the collective interest of all the employees, consistent with equity to
the employer, indicate to be best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and
duties of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the law. 21
cHDEaC

In National Association of Free Trade Unions v. Mainit Lumber

Development Company Workers Union — United Lumber and General
Workers of the Phils. , 22 the Court, taking into account the "community or
mutuality of interests" test, ordered the formation of a single bargaining unit
consisting of the Sawmill Division in Butuan City and the Logging Division in
Zapanta Valley, Kitcharao, Agusan [Del] Norte of the Mainit Lumber
Development Company. It held that while the existence of a bargaining
history is a factor that may be reckoned with in determining the appropriate
bargaining unit, the same is not decisive or conclusive. Other factors must
be considered. The test of grouping is community or mutuality of interest.
This is so because the basic test of an asserted bargaining unit's
acceptability is whether or not it is fundamentally the combination which will
best assure to all employees the exercise of their collective bargaining
rights. 23 Certainly, there is a mutuality of interest among the employees of
the Sawmill Division and the Logging Division. Their functions mesh with one
another. One group needs the other in the same way that the company
needs them both. There may be differences as to the nature of their
individual assignments, but the distinctions are not enough to warrant the
formation of a separate bargaining unit. 24

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com

 Thus, applying the ruling to the present case, the Court affirms the
finding of the CA that there should be only one bargaining unit for the
employees in Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis 25 of Magnolia Poultry
Products Plant involved in "dressed" chicken processing and Magnolia Poultry
Farms engaged in "live" chicken operations. Certain factors, such as specific
line of work, working conditions, location of work, mode of compensation,
and other relevant conditions do not affect or impede their commonality of
interest. Although they seem separate and distinct from each other, the
specific tasks of each division are actually interrelated and there exists
mutuality of interests which warrants the formation of a single bargaining
unit.
Petitioner asserts that the CA erred in not excluding the position of
Payroll Master in the definition of a confidential employee and, thus, prays
that the said position and all other positions with access to salary and
compensation data be excluded from the bargaining unit.
This argument must fail. Confidential employees are defined as those
who (1) assist or act in a confidential capacity, in regard (2) to persons who
formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies in the field of
labor relations. 26 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
supervisor, and the supervisor must handle the prescribed responsibilities
relating to labor relations. The exclusion from bargaining units of employees
who, in the normal course of their duties, become aware of management
policies relating to labor relations is a principal objective sought to be
accomplished by the "confidential employee rule." 27
A confidential employee is one entrusted with confidence on delicate,
or with the custody, handling or care and protection of the employer's
property. 28 Confidential employees, such as accounting personnel, should
be excluded from the bargaining unit, as their access to confidential
information may become the source of undue advantage. 29 However, such
fact does not apply to the position of Payroll Master and the whole gamut of
employees who, as perceived by petitioner, has access to salary and
compensation data. The CA correctly held that the position of Payroll Master
does not involve dealing with confidential labor relations information in the
course of the performance of his functions. Since the nature of his work does
not pertain to company rules and regulations and confidential labor
relations, it follows that he cannot be excluded from the subject bargaining
unit.
Corollarily, although Article 245 30 of the Labor Code limits the
ineligibility to join, form and assist any labor organization to managerial
employees, jurisprudence has extended this prohibition to confidential
employees or those who by reason of their positions or nature of work are
required to assist or act in a fiduciary manner to managerial employees and,
hence, are likewise privy to sensitive and highly confidential records. 31
Confidential employees are thus excluded from the rank-and-file bargaining
unit. The rationale for their separate category and disqualification to join any
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 labor organization is similar to the inhibition for managerial employees,
because if allowed to be affiliated with a union, the latter might not be
assured of their loyalty in view of evident conflict of interests and the union
can also become company-denominated with the presence of managerial
employees in the union membership. 32 Having access to confidential
information, confidential employees may also become the source of undue
advantage. Said employees may act as a spy or spies of either party to a
collective bargaining agreement. 33
In this regard, the CA correctly ruled that the positions of Human
Resource Assistant and Personnel Assistant belong to the category of
confidential employees and, hence, are excluded from the bargaining unit,
considering their respective positions and job descriptions. As Human
Resource Assistant, 34 the scope of one's work necessarily involves labor
relations, recruitment and selection of employees, access to employees'
personal files and compensation package, and human resource
management. As regards a Personnel Assistant, 35 one's work includes the
recording of minutes for management during collective bargaining
negotiations, assistance to management during grievance meetings and
administrative investigations, and securing legal advice for labor issues from
the petitioner's team of lawyers, and implementation of company programs.
Therefore, in the discharge of their functions, both gain access to vital labor
relations information which outrightly disqualifies them from union
membership. CTSHDI

The proceedings for certification election are quasi-judicial in nature

and, therefore, decisions rendered in such proceedings can attain finality. 36
Applying the doctrine of res judicata, the issue in the present case pertaining
to the coverage of the employees who would constitute the bargaining unit
is now a foregone conclusion.
It bears stressing that a certification election is the sole concern of the
workers; hence, an employer lacks the personality to dispute the same. The
general rule is that an employer has no standing to question the process of
certification election, since this is the sole concern of the workers. 37 Law
and policy demand that employers take a strict, hands-off stance in
certification elections. The bargaining representative of employees should
be chosen free from any extraneous influence of management. A labor
bargaining representative, to be effective, must owe its loyalty to the
employees alone and to no other. 38 The only exception is where the
employer itself has to file the petition pursuant to Article 258 39 of the Labor
Code because of a request to bargain collectively. 40
With the foregoing disquisition, the Court writes finis to the issues
raised so as to forestall future suits of similar nature.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated April 28,
2000 and Resolution dated November 28, 2000 of the Court of Appeals, in
CA-G.R. SP No. 55510, which affirmed with modification the Resolutions
dated July 30, 1999 and August 27, 1999 of the Secretary of Labor, are
AFFIRMED.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 SO ORDERED.
Carpio, * Velasco, Jr., Abad and Sereno, ** JJ., concur.

Footnotes
*Designated as an additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Jose Catral
Mendoza, per Special Order No. 1056a dated July 27, 2011.
**Designated as an additional member, per Special Order No. 1028 dated June 21,
2011.
1.343 Phil. 143 (1997).
2.Id. at 151, 153-154.
3.Per petitioner's Reply to Comment dated January 6, 2004, its Otis Plant is no
longer operational.
4.See CA Decision dated April 28, 2000, p. 5; rollo, p. 15.
5.Rollo , pp. 127-130.

6.Supra note 4.
7.Rollo , pp. 131-133.
8.See Resolution dated July 30, 1999 of then Acting DOLE Undersecretary
Rosalinda Dimapilis-Baldoz, id. at 84.
9.Id.
10.Id.
11.Rollo , pp. 142-150.

12.Supra note 8.
13.Rollo , pp. 88-89.
14.Per then Acting DOLE Undersecretary Rosalinda Dimapilis-Baldoz, id. at 83-86.
15.CA rollo, pp. 130-141.

16.Rollo , p. 87.
17.Penned by Associate Justice Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos, with Associate Justices
Corona Ibay-Somera and Elvi John S. Asuncion, concurring; id. at 11-26.
18.CA rollo, pp. 437-449.
19.Penned by Associate Justice Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos, with Associate Justices
Elvi John S. Asuncion and Eliezer R. Delos Santos, concurring, rollo, pp. 28-29.
20.San Miguel Corporation Supervisors and Exempt Employees Union v. Laguesma,
supra note 1.
21.Id. at 153, citing University of the Philippines v. Calleja-Ferrer, 211 SCRA 464
(1992), which cited Rothenberg on Labor Relations, p. 482.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com

 22.G.R. No. 79526, December 21, 1990, 192 SCRA 598.
23.Id. at 602, citing Democratic Labor Association v. Cebu Stevedoring Company,
Inc., et al., 103 Phil. 1103 (1958).
24.Id.

25.See note 3.
26.Sugbuanon Rural Bank, Inc. v. Laguesma , G.R. No. 381 Phil. 414, 424 (2000),
citing San Miguel Corp. Supervisors and Exempt Employees Union v.
Laguesma, supra note 1, at 374, which cited Westinghouse Electric Corp. v.
NLRB (CA6) 398 F2d. 689 (1968), Ladish Co., 178 NLRB 90 (1969) and B.F.
Goodrich Co., 115 NLRB 722 (1956).
27.Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Asia Brewery v. Asia Brewery, Inc.,
G.R. 162025, August 3, 2010, 626 SCRA 376, 387, citing San Miguel Corp.
Supervisors and Exempt Employees Union v. Laguesma, supra note 1, at
374-375, which cited Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. NLRB, id., Ladish Co.,
id., and B.F. Goodrich Co., id.
28.Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 103300,
August 10, 1999, 312 SCRA 104, 116.
29.Golden Farms, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja , 256 Phil. 903, 909 (1989), cited in Standard
Chartered Bank Employees Union (SCBEU-NUBE) v. Standard Chartered Bank,
G.R. No. 161933, April 22, 2008, 552 SCRA 284, 291-292 and Philips
Industrial Development, Inc. v. NLRC , G.R. No. 88957, June 25, 1992, 210
SCRA 339, 348.
30.Art. 245. Ineligibility of managerial employees to join any labor organization;
right of supervisory employees. — Managerial employees are not eligible to
join, assist or form any labor organization. Supervisory employees shall not
be eligible for membership in the collective bargaining unit of the rank-and-
file employees but may join, assist or form separate collective bargaining
units and/or legitimate labor organizations of their own. The rank-and-file
union and the supervisor's union operating within the supervisors' union
operating within the same establishment may join the same federation or
national union.
31.Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Asia Brewery v. Asia Brewery, Inc.,
supra note 27, at 381, citing Metrolab Industries, Inc. v. Roldan-Confesor,
G.R. No. 108855, February 28, 1996, 254 SCRA 182, 197.

32.Id. at 381-382, citing Bulletin Publishing Corporation v. Sanchez, 228 Phil. 600,
608-609 (1986).

33.Id. at 382, citing Golden Farms, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja, supra note 29.
34.Human Resource Assistant: To support the human resources objectives of
the MPPP, MPF this position shall provide coordination, advice, information
and assistance to the plant personnel manager in the following duties:
MANPOWER PLANNING (PROCESS[ING] AND LIVE)

1.1. Assists and participates in the studies on manning and manpower

forecasts needed to meet the current and future personnel requirements of
processing, live operations.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 1.2. Checks plans for the implementation of staff movements such as
transfers, promotions and separations of both processing [and] live
operations.

1.3 Coordinates with all department[s] for the consolidation of manpower

cost budget and its complement.

1.4 Provides updated organization to the plant management.

COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION (PROCESSING AND LIVE)
2.1 Initially evaluates and classifies all positions.
2.2 Prepares salary analyses and recommendations for consultation with
compensation dept.
2.3 Develops/updates compensation packages for specific personnel when
the need arises.
2.4 Administers compensation-related benefits, such as extra time worked
allowance, special allowance, supplementary allowance, housing assistance,
per diem, relocation expense reimbursement, etc.
2.5 Provide the Personnel Manager Officer and Compensation Department
with the records related to Compensation such as salary profiles per
classification used negotiations.
RECRUITMENT (PROCESSING, LIVE)

3.1 Conducts preliminary interview of applicants before giving tests.

3.2 Coordinates with Dept. Heads/Managers pertaining to internal
recruitment selection and hiring of qualified applicants.
3.3. Checks all pre-employment papers of the applicants to ensure its
completeness such as the requisition, approved Plantilla, applicant's SSS
number and TIN, etc. (CA rollo, pp. 66-67) (Emphasis supplied.)
35.Personnel Assistant:

LABOR RELATIONS
1. Records minutes during Labor Management Cooperation dialogues and
CBA negotiations meeting and facilitates the same when requested.
2. Coordinates Grievance Meeting officially submitted by the Union to
Management and feedbacks PPM on schedules and results.

3. Provides support to departments in recording of minutes and schedule of

Administrative Investigations.

4. Consults and coordinates with SMB Legal Group to seek legal clarification
or opinion on certain labor issues and reports to PPM for action.

5. Performs and maintains liaison with union representative on certain issues

to minimize courses of action.

6. Ensures timely preparation and submission of DOLE monthly and quarterly

reportorial requirements.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com

 EMPLOYEE RELATIONS
1. Facilitates timely implementation of Corporate Special Programs in
discussion with the PPM aligned with budgeted costs and Management
thrust.

2. Coordinates with local unions for participation/support in the activities of

program implementation and reports to PPM on results of meetings.

3. Maintains regular dialogues and liaisoning activities with employees on

concern affecting them and provides feedback to PPM. (Id. at 69-70)
(Emphasis supplied.)
36.United Pepsi-Cola Supervisory Union (UPSU) v. Laguesma , 351 Phil. 244, 261
(1998) citing B.F. Goodrich Philippines, Inc. v. B.F. Goodrich (Marikina
Factory) Confidential & Salaried Employees Union-NATU, 151 Phil. 585
(1973).

37.Barbizon Philippines, Inc. v. Nagkakaisang Supervisor ng Barbizon Philippines,

Inc. — NAFLU, 330 Phil. 472, 493 (1996), n citing Golden Farms, Inc. v. Secretary of
Labor, G.R. No. 102130, July 26, 1994, 234 SCRA 517, 523; National
Association of Trade Unions — Republic Planters Bank Supervisors Chapter v.
Torres, G.R. No. 93468, December 29, 1994, 239 SCRA 546, 551; Philippine
Telegraph and Telephone Corp. v. Laguesma, G.R. No. 101730, June 17,
1993, 223 SCRA 452, 456-457.
38.Barbizon Philippines, Inc. v. Nagkakaisang Supervisor ng Barbizon Philippines,
Inc. — NAFLU, supra, citing Golden Farms, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, supra.
39.Art. 258. When an employer may file petition. — When requested to bargain
collectively, an employer may petition the Bureau for an election. If there is
no existing certified collective bargaining agreement in the unit, the Bureau
shall, after hearing, order a certification election.
All certification election cases shall be decided within twenty (20) days.

The Bureau shall conduct a certification election within twenty (20) days in
accordance with the rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of
Labor.
40.National Association of Trade Unions — Republic Planters Bank Supervisors
Chapter v. Torres, supra note 37.
n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official copy. Formerly “37.
Barbizon Philippines, Inc. v. Nagkakaisang Supervisor ng Barbizon
Philippines, Inc. — 330 Phil. 472, 493 (1996)”

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com