0 1 3

ATLAS
LITHOGRAPHIC
SERVICES,INC.,
petitioner, vs.
UNDERSECRETAR
Y BIENVENIDO E.
LAGUESMA(Depar
t e!t "# La$"r a!%
E p&"' e!t a!%
ATLASLITHOGRA
PHIC SERVICES,
INC.
SUPERVISORY,AD
MINISTRATIVE,
PERSONNEL,
PRODUCTION,AC
COUNTING AND
CON)IDENTIAL
EMPLOYEESASSO
CIATION*+AISAH
AN NG
MANGGA ANGPI
LIPINO
(+AMPIL*+ATIPUN
AN
-G.R. N". / //
2a! ar' /,
1 45TOPIC
:
PONENTE
:
AUTHOR
: NOTES: (if
applicable)Petition
for review under
Rule 6 Note:
since t!is case was
"entioned under t!e
#$or Reference%
part, please ta&e ti"e
to read t!e brief
!istor' of t!e
a"end"ents on t!e
abor ode. Please
ta&e note of t!e
difference fro" t!e
*ndustrial Peace+ct
- /01 abor
ode - /2/
 abor ode*nd
Peace +ct 3 4 t'pes
of e"plo'ees /01
3 onl' "ana5erial
and
ran& and file /2/
3 bac& to *nd Peace
+ct included
supervisor' e"ps.
)ACTS6
On 7ul' 6, //8, t!e
supervisor',
ad"inistrative
personnel,
production,
accountin5 and
confidential
e"plo'ees of
+tlas it!o5rap!ic
Services *nc (+ S*)
affiliated wit!
9aisa!an n5
an55a5awan5
Pilipino" a national
labor or5ani;ation.
T!elocal union
adopted t!e na"e
+ S* S+PP+ E+
9+ P* , w!ic!
s!all !ereafter refer
to as t!e
#supervisors%
union.
9a"pil 9atipunan
filed on be!alf of t!e
#supervisors% union
a petition for
certification election
so t!at it could be t!e
soleand e<clusive
bar5ainin5 a5ent of
t!e supervisor'
e"plo'ees. + S*
opposed t!e petition
clai"in5 t!at under
+rt. =1 of t!e
abor ode,
9a"pil 9atipunana
cannot represent t!e
supervisor'
e"plo'ees for
collective
bar5ainin5
purposes because it
also represents t!e
ran& and file
e"plo'ees> union. On
Septe"ber 2, //8,
t!e ed +rbiter
issued an order
allowin5 t!e
certification
election. + S*
appealed but
suc!appeal was
denied. ?ence, t!is
petition for
certiorari.
ISSUE(S
:
 .@ON, under +rt.
=1 of t!e abor
ode, a local union
of supervisor'
e"plo'ees "a' be
allowed to affiliate
wit!a national
federation of labor
or5ani;ation of
ran& and file
e"plo'ees w!ere suc!
federation
represents
itsaffiliates in t!e
collective
bar5ainin5
ne5otiation wit! t!e
sa"e e"plo'er of t!e
supervisors and in
t!ei"ple"entation of
t!e A+s.
HELD
: NO, supervisors
are not pro!ibited
fro" for"in5 t!eir
own union. @!at t!e
law pro!ibits is t!eir
"e"bers!ip in alabor
or5ani;ation of
ran& and file
e"plo'ees or t!eir
Boinin5 in a
federation of
ran& and file
e"plo'ees t!at
includes t!ever' local
union w!ic! t!e' are
not allowed to
directl' Boin.
RATIO
:+ S*>s
ar5u"ents: .9+ P*
9+T*PCN+N
alread' represents
its ran& and file
e"plo'ees and,
t!erefore, to allow t!e
supervisors of t!ose
e"plo'ees to affiliate
wit! t!e private
respondent is
tanta"ount to
allowin5 t!e
circu"vention of t!e
principle of t!e
separation of unions
under +rticle =1 of
t!e abor ode.
=.
*t furt!er ar5ues t!at
t!e intent of t!e law is
to prevent a sin5le
labor or5ani;ation
fro" representin5
different classes
of e"plo'ees wit!
conflictin5 interests.
9+ P* 9+T*PCN
+N>s ar5u"ents: .
Despite affiliation
wit! a national
federation, t!e local
union does not lose
its personalit' w!ic! is
separate, and
distinctfro" t!e
national federation.
+da"son F +da"son
vs. *R ( /21)G
=.
*t "aintains t!at Rep.
+ct No. 60
conte"plates t!e
principle laid down b'
t!is ourt in t!e
 Adamson
case
interpretin5Section 4
of Rep. +ct No. 20
(t!e *ndustrial Peace
+ct) on t!e ri5!t of a
supervisorHs union
to affiliate. T!e
privaterespondent
asserts t!at t!e
le5islature "ust !ave
noted t!e
Adamson
rulin5 t!en
prevailin5 w!en it
conceived
t!ereinstate"ent in t!e
present abor ode
of a si"ilar provision
on t!e ri5!t of
supervisors to
or5ani;e.
D*S CSS*ON:T!e
basis of t!e +da"son
case is R.+. No. 20
(*ndustrial Peace
+ct) w!ere e"plo'ees
were classified into
t!ree 5roups,na"el':
) "ana5erial
e"plo'ees =)
supervisors and 4)
ran& and file
e"plo'ees.
Supervisors w!o
were
considerede"plo'ees
in relation to t!eir
e"plo'er could Boin
a union but not a
union of
ran& and file
e"plo'ees.
@it! t!e enact"ent in
/01 of t!e abor
ode (Pres Decree
No. 11=), e"plo'ees
were classified into
"ana5erial and
ran& and file
e"plo'ees. Neit!er t!e
cate5or' of
supervisors nor t!eir
ri5!t to or5ani;e
under t!e old statute
were reco5ni;ed. So
t!at, in
Bulletin Publishing
Corporation v
.
 Sanchez
( 11 S R+ 6=2
/26G), t!e ourt
interpreted t!e
supersedin5 labor
law to !ave