CASE DIGEST : COCA-COLA FEMSA PHILIPPINES v. COCA-COLA FEMSA PHILS GR No. 238633 GAERLAN

 FACTS : The present petition for review on certiorari challenges the November 22, 2017 Decision and March 26, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 07723-MIN, which dismissed Coca-Cola FEMSA Philippines, Inc.’s (CCPI) petition for certiorari questioning the August 18, 2016 Order of Circuit Mediator-Arbiter Erwin C. Angeles granting the petition for certification election filed by the Union representing CCPI’s regular supervisory and coordinator employees in its Misamis Oriental plant. CCPI argued that the employees in the bargaining unit were managerial and thus ineligible to organize, but the Mediator-Arbiter and the CA found that based on their job descriptions and reporting lines, the employees were supervisory, not managerial, as they only executed ready-made policies and merely recommended managerial actions. The CA upheld that the employer has no standing to oppose a certification election and dismissed CCPI’s petition, noting that the reorganization of the plant positions in March 2017 did not alter the employees’ supervisory status. CCPI’s motion for reconsideration was denied, confirming the Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent.

ISSUE : WON MA and the CA erred in ruling that the employees in the bargaining unit represented by the Union are supervisory employees;  2) WON the CA erred when it refused to rule that the petition for certification election had been rendered moot and academic by the reorganization of the Misamis Oriental plant's manufacturing unit.

HELD : The Supreme Court denied Coca-Cola FEMSA Philippines, Inc.’s (CCPI) petition for review on certiorari, affirming the November 22, 2017 Decision and March 26, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 07723-MIN. The Court found CCPI guilty of forum shopping for failing to disclose the pendency of CA-G.R. SP No. 152835, which also challenged the certification of the Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent, and for seeking repetitive relief on substantially the same issues. Moreover, the Court reiterated that under Article 271 of the Labor Code, an employer is a mere bystander in certification election proceedings and lacks standing to oppose the Union’s petition. The Court further held that CCPI’s March 2017 reorganization did not affect the supervisory character of the positions in the bargaining unit, as the changes were largely nominal or consolidatory without altering reporting lines or the employees’ functions. Consequently, the Union’s certification remained valid, and the petition was denied, upholding the findings of both the Mediator-Arbiter and the Court of Appeals.