G.R. No.

111262 September 19, 1996

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION-PTGWO, represented by its
President RAYMUNDO HIPOLITO, JR., petitioner, vs. HON. MA. NIEVES D.
CONFESOR, Secretary of Labor, Dept. of Labor & Employment, SAN MIGUEL
CORPORATION, MAGNOLIA CORPORATION (Formerly, Magnolia Plant) and SAN
MIGUEL FOODS, INC. (Formerly, B-Meg Plant), respondents.
Facts:
San Miguel Corporation created Magnolia Corporation and San Miguel Foods
Inc.(SMFI), which were formerly under the SMC divisions. SMC Employees Union,
however, insisted that the employees of Magnolia and SMFI should still form part of the
bargaining unit of San Miguel Corporation.
Issue:
Whether or not the employees of Magnolia and SMFI are still included in the bargaining
unit of SMC.
Ruling:
In determining an appropriate bargaining unit, the test of grouping is mutuality or
commonality of interests. The employees sought to be represented by the collective
bargaining agent must have substantial mutual interests in terms of employment and
working conditions as evinced by the type of work they performed. Considering the spinoffs, the companies would consequently have their respective and distinctive concerns
in terms of the nature of work, wages, hours of work and other conditions of
employment. Interests of employees in the different companies perforce differ. SMC is
engaged in the business of the beer manufacturing. Magnolia is involved in the
manufacturing and processing of diary products while SMFI is involved in the production
of feeds and the processing of chicken. The nature of their products and scales of
business may require different skills which must necessarily be commensurated by
different compensation packages. The different companies may have different volumes
of work and different working conditions. For such reason, the employees of the
different companies see the need to group themselves together and organize
themselves into distinctive and different groups. It would then be best to have separate
bargaining units for the different companies where the employees can bargain
separately according to their needs and according to their own working conditions.
PHILTRANCO SERVICE ENTERPRISES, petitioner, vs. BUREAU OF LABOR
RELATIONS and KAPISANAN NG MGA KAWANI, ASSISTANT, MANGGAGAWA AT
KONPIDENSIYAL SA PHILTRANCO, respondents.
Facts:
Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. is a land transportation company engaged in the
business of carrying passengers and freight. The Kapisanan ng mga Kawani, Assistant,
Manggagawa at Konpidensyal sa Philtranco (KASAMA KO), a registered labor
organization filed a petition for certification election with the Department of Labor and
Employment, alleging that to represent all professional, technical, administrative, and
confidential employees personnel of respondent at its establishments in Luzon, Visayas
and Mindanao for purposes of collective bargaining which are not included in the
bargaining unit of rank and file employees.
Issue:
Whether or not theres substantial difference to warrant the creation of new union.
Ruling:
Certainly there is a commonality of interest among filing clerks, dispatchers, drivers,
typists, and field men. They are all interested in the progress of their company and in
each worker sharing in the fruits of their endeavors equitably and generously. Their
functions mesh with one another. One group needs the other in the same way that the
company needs them all. The drivers, mechanics and conductors are necessary for the
company but technical, administrative and office personnel are also needed and equally
important for the smooth operation of the business. There may be differences as to the
nature of their individual assignments but the distinctions are not enough to warrant the
formation of separate unions. The private respondent has not even shown that a

separate bargaining unit would be beneficial to the employees concerned. Office

employees also belong to the rank and file. There is an existing employer wide unit in
the company represented by NAMAWU-MIF. And as earlier stated, the fact that
NAMAWU-MIF moved to intervene in the petition for certification election filed by
KASAMA KO negates the allegations that "substantial differences" exist between the
employees concerned. We find a commonality of interest among them. There are no
compelling reasons for the formation of another union.
G.R. No. 100485 September 21, 1994
SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE BIENVENIDO E.
LAGUESMA and NORTH LUZON MAGNOLIA SALES LABOR UNIONINDEPENDENT, respondents.
Facts:
The North Luzon Magnolia Sales Labor Union filed with the Department of Labor a
petition for certification election among all the regular sales personnel of Magnolia Dairy
Products in the North Luzon Sales Area. San Miguel Corporation opposed the petition
and questioned the appropriateness of the bargaining unit sought to be represented by
respondent union. It claimed that its bargaining history in its sales offices, plants and
warehouses is to have a separate bargaining unit for each sales office.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent union represents an appropriate bargaining unit.
Ruling:
Contrary to petitioner's assertion, this Court has categorically ruled that the existence of
a prior collective bargaining history is neither decisive nor conclusive in the
determination of what constitutes an appropriate bargaining unit. Indeed, the test of
grouping is mutuality or commonality of interests. The employees sought to be
represented by the collective bargaining agent must have substantial mutual interests in
terms of employment and working conditions as evinced by the type of work they
perform.
In the case at bench, respondent union sought to represent the sales personnel in the
various Magnolia sales offices in northern Luzon. There is similarity of employment
status for only the regular sales personnel in the north Luzon area are covered. They
have the same duties and responsibilities and substantially similar compensation and
working conditions. The commonality of interest among he sales personnel in the north
Luzon sales area cannot be gainsaid. In fact, in the certification election held on
November 24, 1990, the employees concerned accepted respondent union as their
exclusive bargaining agent. Clearly, they have expressed their desire to be one.
G.R. No. 110399 August 15, 1997
SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION SUPERVISORS AND EXEMPT UNION AND
ERNESTO L. PONCE, President, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE BIENVENIDO E.
LAGUESMA IN HIS CAPACITY AS UNDERSECRETARY OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT, HONORABLE DANILO L. REYNANTE IN HIS CAPACITY AS MEDARBITER AND SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, respondents.
Facts:
San Miguel Corporation Supervisors and Exempt Union filed before the Department of
Labor and Employment a Petition for Direct Certification or Certification Election among
the supervisors and exempt employees of the SMC Magnolia Poultry Products Plants of
Cabuyao, San Fernando and Otis. San Miguel Corporation filed a Notice of Appeal with
Memorandum on Appeal, pointing out, among others, the Med-Arbiter's error in
grouping together all three (3) separate plants, Otis, Cabuyao and San Fernando, into
one bargaining unit.
Issue:
Whether or not the employees of the three plants constitute an appropriate single
bargaining unit.
Ruling:
A unit to be appropriate must effect a grouping of employees who have substantial,

mutual interests in wages, hours, working conditions and other subjects of collective
bargaining.
It is readily seen that the employees in the instant case have "community or mutuality of
interests," which is the standard in determining the proper constituency of a collective
bargaining unit. It is undisputed that they all belong to the Magnolia Poultry Division of
San Miguel Corporation. This means that, although they belong to three different plants,
they perform work of the same nature, receive the same wages and compensation, and
most importantly, share a common stake in concerted activities.
The fact that the three plants are located in three different places, namely, in Cabuyao,
Laguna, in Otis, Pandacan, Metro Manila, and in San Fernando, Pampanga is
immaterial.
G.R. No. 151326
ST. JAMES SCHOOL OF QUEZON CITY, Petitioner, vs. SAMAHANG
MANGGAGAWA SA ST. JAMES SCHOOL OF QUEZON CITY, Respondent.
Facts:
The Samahang Manggagawa sa St. James School of Quezon City (Samahang
Manggagawa) filed a petition for certification election to determine the collective
bargaining representative of the motor pool, construction and transportation employees
of St. James School of Quezon City (St. James). The certification election was held at
the DOLE office in Intramuros, Manila. There were 149 eligible voters and 84 voters
cast their votes. St. James filed a certification election protest challenging the 84
votes. St. James alleged that it had 179 rank and file employees, none of whom voted
in the certification election. The DOLE, however, found that Samahang Manggagawa
seeks to represent the non-academic personnel or the rank and file employees from the
motor pool, construction and transportation departments, and not all the rank and file
employees of St. James. The DOLE ruled that the list submitted by St. James contained
only the administrative, teaching and office personnel of the school.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent union represents an appropriate bargaining unit.
Ruling:
We sustain the factual finding of the DOLE that the list submitted by St. James consists
of its administrative, teaching and office personnel. These administrative, teaching and
office personnel are not members of Samahang Manggagawa. They do not belong to
the bargaining unit that Samahang Manggagawa seeks to represent. Hence, the list
submitted by St. James may not be used as basis to determine the members of
Samahang Manggagawa.