Association of Marine Officers and Seamen of Reyes and Lim Co. (Managers for Cargo Marine Corp.) v. Laguesma
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Association of Marine Officers and Seamen of Reyes and Lim Co. (petitioner) filed a petition for certification election on March 11, 1992. The Med-Arbiter issued an Order for the conduct of a certification election covering the entire complement of four vessels, ruling that the company failed to show that certain employees (master, chief mate, second mate, third mate, radio officer, chief engineer, and second engineer) were managerial, supervisory, or confidential employees. Procedural History: The private respondent, Reyes and Lim Co. Inc., appealed the Med-Arbiter's Order to the Secretary of Labor and Employment. In a resolution dated October 8, 1992, Undersecretary Bienvenido E. Laguesma modified the Med-Arbiter's order, excluding the Major Patron, Minor Patron, Chief Mate, and Chief Marine Engineer from the bargaining unit, holding them to be managerial employees. A motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner sought to have the resolution of the public respondent set aside, arguing that the major patron, minor patron, chief mate, and chief engineer are rank and file employees, not managerial, and thus eligible to form part of the union and participate in the certification election.
Issue(s)
Whether the major patron, minor patron, chief mate, and chief engineer of the vessels are managerial employees. Whether the determination of employee status should be made during pre-election "inclusion-exclusion" proceedings.
Ruling
The petition was dismissed, and the challenged resolution of the Undersecretary of Labor was affirmed. The Court ruled that the major patron, minor patron, chief mate, and chief engineer are managerial employees and are therefore disqualified from joining a labor organization.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the major patron, minor patron, chief mate, and chief engineer are managerial employees: The Court affirmed the public respondent's conclusion that these positions are managerial. The job descriptions submitted by the private respondent, which were considered by the Undersecretary, indicated that the major patron takes complete charge and command of the ship, the minor patron commands a vessel within inland waterways, the chief mate acts as the executive officer next in command to the captain, and the chief marine engineer plans and supervises the engine-room department. These functions, according to the Court, involve the power to lay down and execute management policies, aligning with the definition of managerial employees under Article 212(m) of the Labor Code. The Court found the petitioner's attack on the job descriptions inadequate, noting the lack of superior proof from the petitioner regarding the actual functions performed by these officers. Furthermore, the Court held that the fact that the vessels operate within bays and rivers and haul liquefied petroleum gas does not remove the workers from the coverage of maritime law and the applicability of the job descriptions, as the vessels are still used as a means of transportation by water. The exercise of discretion and judgment in directing a ship's course was deemed managerial in nature. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent Undersecretary. On whether the determination of employee status should be made during pre-election "inclusion-exclusion" proceedings: The Court found this issue not a proper one for consideration as it was raised for the first time in the petition before the Supreme Court. The well-settled principle that issues not raised in the lower court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal applies even in labor cases, to uphold basic rules of fair play, justice, and due process.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the resolution of the Undersecretary of Labor classifying major patron, minor patron, chief mate, and chief engineer as managerial employees, thus disqualifying them from joining a labor union, based on their duties and functions as outlined in job descriptions considered as industry practice and supported by substantial evidence.