SIM VS NLRC

RATIO: Respondent is a managerial employee. Thus, loss of trust and confidence is a valid ground for
her dismissal.[14] The mere existence of a basis for believing that a managerial employee has breached
the trust of the employer would suffice for his/her dismissal.[15]

[w]hen an employee accepts a promotion to a managerial position or to an office

requiring full trust and confidence, she gives up some of the rigid guaranties available to
ordinary workers. Infractions which if committed by others would be overlooked or
condoned or penalties mitigated may be visited with more severe disciplinary action. A
companys resort to acts of self-defense would be more easily justified.[16]

FACTS:

Corazon Sim (petitioner) filed a case for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter, alleging that she was initially employed by
Equitable PCI-Bank (respondent) in 1990 as Italian Remittance Marketing Consultant to the Frankfurt Representative Office.
Eventually, she was promoted to Manager position, until September 1999, when she received a letter from Remegio David -- the
Senior Officer, European Head of PCIBank, and Managing Director of PCIB- Europe -- informing her that she was being
dismissed due to loss of trust and confidence based on alleged mismanagement and misappropriation of funds. The Labor Arbiter
dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction and/or lack of merit stressing that the labor relations system in the Philippines has no
extra-territorial jurisdiction. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter's Decision and
dismissed petitioner's appeal for lack of merit.

ISSUE: WON the LA has extra-territorial jurisdiction

RULING:

Article 217 of the Labor Code provides for the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission x
x x Moreover, Section 10 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042, or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995,18
provides:

SECTION 10. Money Claims. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Labor Arbiters of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within ninety (90) calendar
days after the filing of the complaint, the claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or
contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of
damages.

Also, Section 62 of the Omnibus Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. No. 804219 provides that the Labor Arbiters of the
NLRC shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide all claims arising out of employer-employee
relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual,
moral, exemplary and other forms of damages, subject to the rules and procedures of the NLRC.

Under these provisions, it is clear that labor arbiters have original and exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising from employer-
employee relations, including termination disputes involving all workers, among whom are overseas Filipino workers
SAN MIGUEL VS LAGUESMA

Ratio: The fundamental factors in determining the appropriate collective bargaining unit
are: (1) the will of the employees [Globe doctrine]; (2) the the affinity and unity of
the employees interests, such as the substantial similarity of work and duties, or
of compensation and working conditions [Substantial or Mutual Interests rule;
community of interest]; (3) prior collective bargaining history; and (4) similarity of
employment status.

FACTS: Petitioner union filed before DOLE 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.
Med-Arbiter Danilo L. Reynante issued an Order ordering the conduct of certification election among the
abovementioned employees of the different plants as one bargaining unit.

San Miguel Corporation filed a Notice of Appeal with Memorandum on Appeal, pointing out, among
others, the Med-Arbiters error in grouping together all three (3) separate plants, into one bargaining unit,
and in including supervisory levels 3 and above whose positions are confidential in nature.

The public respondent, Undersecretary Laguesma, granted respondent companys Appeal and ordered the
remand of the case to the Med-Arbiter of origin for determination of the true classification of each of the
employees sought to be included in the appropriate bargaining unit.

Upon petitioner-unions motion, Undersecretary Laguesma granted the reconsideration prayed for and
directed the conduct of separate certification elections among the supervisors ranked as supervisory levels
1 to 4 (S1 to S4) and the exempt employees in each of the three plants at Cabuyao, San Fernando and
Otis.

ISSUE:
1. Whether Supervisory employees 3 and 4 and the exempt employees of the company are considered
confidential employees, hence ineligible from joining a union.
2. If they are not confidential employees, do the employees of the three plants constitute an appropriate
single bargaining unit.

RULING:
(1) On the first issue, this Court rules that said employees do not fall within the term confidential
employees who may be prohibited from joining a union.

They are not qualified to be classified as managerial employees who, under Article 245 of the Labor
Code, are not eligible to join, assist or form any labor organization. In the very same provision, they are
not allowed membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or
form separate labor organizations of their own.

Confidential employees are those who (1) assist or act in a confidential capacity, (2) to persons who
formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies in the field of labor relations. 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. The broad rationale behind this rule is that employees
should not be placed in a position involving a potential conflict of interests. Management should not be
required to handle labor relations matters through employees who are represented by the union with
which the company is required to deal and who in the normal performance of their duties may obtain
advance information of the companys position with regard to contract negotiations, the disposition of
grievances, or other labor relations matters.

The Court held that if these managerial employees would belong to or be affiliated with a Union, the
latter might not be assured of their loyalty to the Union in view of evident conflict of interest. An
important element of the confidential employee rule is the employees need to use labor relations
information. Thus, in determining the confidentiality of certain employees, a key question frequently
considered is the employees necessary access to confidential labor relations information.

(2) 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. Geographical location can
be completely disregarded if the communal or mutual interests of the employees are not sacrificed.

An appropriate bargaining unit may be 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.

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