FACTS:

The case involves a petition filed by San Miguel Corporation (SMC) seeking to set aside a Resolution and Order of the Undersecretary declaring the respondent union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for Magnolia sales personnel in northern Luzon. The North Luzon Magnolia Sales Labor Union filed a petition for certification election among all the regular sales personnel of Magnolia Dairy Products. SMC opposed the petition and argued for separate bargaining units for each sales office. During the proceedings, SMC's counsel agreed to consider all the sales offices in northern Luzon as one bargaining unit. The union won the certification election, and the Mediator-Arbiter certified them as the exclusive bargaining agent for all regular sales personnel in the sales area. SMC appealed to the Secretary of Labor, but the appeal was denied. SMC then filed a petition for certiorari before the court, claiming that the Undersecretary acted with grave abuse of discretion in ignoring its valid grounds and the established bargaining history. The court found no merit in the petition and upheld the certification of the union as the bargaining agent.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not respondent union represents an appropriate bargaining unit.

2. Whether or not petitioner is bound by its lawyer's act of agreeing to consider the sales personnel in the north Luzon sales area as one bargaining unit.

RULING:

1. The Court finds that respondent union represents an appropriate bargaining unit. The factors in determining the appropriate bargaining unit are: (1) the will of the employees; (2) affinity and unity of the employees' interest; (3) prior collective bargaining history; and (4) similarity of employment status. The existence of a prior collective bargaining history is not decisive or conclusive in determining the appropriate bargaining unit. In this case, the sales personnel in the various Magnolia sales offices in northern Luzon have similarity of employment status, duties, responsibilities, compensation, and working conditions. They have expressed their desire to be represented by respondent union. Therefore, the sales personnel in the north Luzon sales area can be considered as one bargaining unit.

2. Petitioner is bound by its lawyer's act of agreeing to consider the sales personnel in the north Luzon sales area as one bargaining unit. The collective bargaining history of a company is not decisive in determining the appropriate bargaining unit. The alleged "mistake" of petitioner's substitute lawyer was a result of the negligence of petitioner's lawyers. Since petitioner's lawyers had the opportunity to adequately brief the substitute lawyer but failed to do so, the negligence of the lawyers binds petitioner. As long as the application of the general rule that a client is bound by the mistakes of his counsel does not result in serious injustice, no exception to the rule should be made.

PRINCIPLES:

• The appropriate bargaining unit is determined by the will of the employees, affinity and unity of the employees' interest, prior collective bargaining history, and similarity of employment status.

• The existence of a prior collective bargaining history is not decisive or conclusive in determining the appropriate bargaining unit.

• The negligence of a client's lawyers binds the client. The client is bound by the mistakes of his counsel, except when the application of the general rule would result in serious injustice.