Cathay Pacific Steel Corp Vs CA

FACTS:
1. Petitioner Cathay Pacific Steel Corporation (CAPASCO) hired private respondent Tamondong as
Assistant to the Personnel Manager for its Cainta Plant on 16 February 1990. Thereafter, he was
promoted to the position of Personnel/Administrative Officer, and later to that of Personnel
Superintendent.
2. Sometime in June 1996, the supervisory personnel of CAPASCO launched a move to organize a
union among their ranks, later known as private respondent CAPASCO Union of Supervisory
Employees (CUSE).
3. Private respondent Tamondong actively involved himself in the formation of the union and was
even elected as one of its officers after its creation. Consequently, petitioner CAPASCO sent a
memo to private respondent Tamondong requiring him to explain and to discontinue from his
union activities, with a warning that a continuance thereof shall adversely affect his employment
in the company. Private respondent Tamondong ignored said warning and made a reply letter,
invoking his right as a supervisory employee to join and organize a labor union.
4. In view of that, on 6 February 1997, petitioner CAPASCO through a memo terminated the
employment of private respondent Tamondong on the ground of loss of trust and confidence,
citing his union activities as acts constituting serious disloyalty to the company.
Private respondent Tamondong challenged his dismissal for being illegal and as an act involving
unfair labor According to him, there was no just cause for his dismissal and it was anchored
solely on his involvement and active participation in the organization of the union of supervisory
personnel in CAPASCO. He claimed that such was not a valid ground to terminate his
employment because it was a legitimate exercise of his constitutionally guaranteed right to
self-organization.
In contrast, petitioner CAPASCO contended that by virtue of private respondent Tamondongs

position as Personnel Superintendent and the functions actually performed by him in the
company, he was considered as a managerial employee, thus, under the law he was prohibited
from joining a union as well as from being elected as one of its officers.
LA – in favor of Tamondong
NLRC – modified the decision
CA – Granted the petition for certiorari of Tamandong
ISSUE: Whether or not Tamandong was illegally dismissed for joining the said union.
RULING: Yes. The dismissal of Tamondong was illegal because he was deprived of his
right of self-organization, joining a union.
The Court of Appeals cannot be said to have acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction in annulling the Decision of the NLRC because the findings of the
Court of Appeals that private respondent Tamondong was indeed a supervisory employee and
not a managerial employee, thus, eligible to join or participate in the union activities of private
respondent CUSE, were supported by evidence on record.
In the Decision of the Court of Appeals t made reference to the Memorandum, which required
private respondent Tamondong to observe fixed daily working hours from 8:00 am to 12:00 noon
and from 1:00 pm to 5:00 pm. This imposition upon private respondent Tamondong, according
to the Court of Appeals, is very uncharacteristic of a managerial employee.
To support such a conclusion, the Court of Appeals cited the case of Engineering Equipment,
Inc. v. NLRC where this Court held that one of the essential characteristics of an employee
holding a managerial rank is that he is not subjected to the rigid observance of regular office
hours or maximum hours of work.
DISPOSITIVE: TAMONDONG won.
DOCTRINE: Supervisors can join unions. Article 212(m) of the Labor Code, as amended,
differentiates supervisory employees from managerial employees, to wit: supervisory employees
are those who, in the interest of the employer, effectively recommend such managerial actions, if
the exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of
independent judgment; whereas, managerial employees are those who are vested with powers or
prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or hire, transfer, suspend, lay off,
recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees.
Thus, from the foregoing provision of the Labor Code, it can be clearly inferred that private
respondent Tamondong was just a supervisory employee. Private respondent Tamondong did not
perform any of the functions of a managerial employee as stated in the definition given to it by
the Code. Hence, the Labor Code provisions regarding disqualification of a managerial employee
from joining, assisting or forming any labor organization does not apply to herein private
respondent Tamondong. Being a supervisory employee of CAPASCO, he cannot be prohibited
from joining or participating in the union activities of private respondent CUSE, and in making
such a conclusion, the Court of Appeals did not act whimsically, capriciously or in a despotic
manner, rather, it was guided by the evidence submitted before it.
Thus, given the foregoing findings of the Court of Appeals that private respondent is a
supervisory employee, it is indeed an unfair labor practice on the part of petitioner
CAPASCO to dismiss him on account of his union activities, thereby curtailing his
constitutionally guaranteed right to self-organization,

Cathay Pacific Steel Corp Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cathay Pacific Steel Corp Vs CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cathay Pacific Steel Corp Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FACTS:

In contrast, petitioner CAPASCO contended that by virtue of private respondent Tamondongs

DISPOSITIVE: TAMONDONG won.

You might also like