Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 383 views

    Cathay Pacific Steel Corporation v. CA

    Uploaded by

    loricalo
    This case involves Enrique Tamondong, who was terminated from his position as Personnel Superintendent at CAPASCO after actively participating in the formation of a union for supervisory employees (CUSE) at the company. CAPASCO claimed Tamondong was a managerial employee prohibited from union activities, while Tamondong argued he was a supervisory employee with the right to organize. The Court of Appeals found Tamondong was a supervisory, not managerial, employee and entitled to join the union, annulling the NLRC decision. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision, finding no grave abuse of discretion, as the evidence supported Tamondong being a supervisory employee eligible for union activities.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Cathay Pacific Steel Corporation v. CA

    Uploaded by

    loricalo
    383 views2 pages
    This case involves Enrique Tamondong, who was terminated from his position as Personnel Superintendent at CAPASCO after actively participating in the formation of a union for supervisory employees (CUSE) at the company. CAPASCO claimed Tamondong was a managerial employee prohibited from union activities, while Tamondong argued he was a supervisory employee with the right to organize. The Court of Appeals found Tamondong was a supervisory, not managerial, employee and entitled to join the union, annulling the NLRC decision. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision, finding no grave abuse of discretion, as the evidence supported Tamondong being a supervisory employee eligible for union activities.

    Original Description:

    Labor digest

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves Enrique Tamondong, who was terminated from his position as Personnel Superintendent at CAPASCO after actively participating in the formation of a union for supervisory employees (CUSE) at the company. CAPASCO claimed Tamondong was a managerial employee prohibited from union activities, while Tamondong argued he was a supervisory employee with the right to organize. The Court of Appeals found Tamondong was a supervisory, not managerial, employee and entitled to join the union, annulling the NLRC decision. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision, finding no grave abuse of discretion, as the evidence supported Tamondong being a supervisory employee eligible for union activities.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    383 views2 pages

    Cathay Pacific Steel Corporation v. CA

    Uploaded by

    loricalo
    This case involves Enrique Tamondong, who was terminated from his position as Personnel Superintendent at CAPASCO after actively participating in the formation of a union for supervisory employees (CUSE) at the company. CAPASCO claimed Tamondong was a managerial employee prohibited from union activities, while Tamondong argued he was a supervisory employee with the right to organize. The Court of Appeals found Tamondong was a supervisory, not managerial, employee and entitled to join the union, annulling the NLRC decision. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision, finding no grave abuse of discretion, as the evidence supported Tamondong being a supervisory employee eligible for union activities.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    CATHAY PACIFIC STEEL CORPORATION, BENJAMIN CHUA JR., VIRGILIO AGERO, and LEONARDO VISORRO, JR. vs. HON.

    COURT OF APPEALS, CAPASCO UNION OF SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES (CUSE) and ENRIQUE TAMONDONG III G.R. No. 164561. August 30, 2006. FACTS: Private respondent Tomondong was the Assistant to the Personnel Manager of Petitioner CAPASCO. He was promoted to the position of Personnel/Administrative Officer, and later to that of Personnel Superintendent. The supervisory personnel of CAPASCO launched a move to organize a union among their ranks, later known as private respondent CUSE. Tamondong actively involved himself in the formation of the union and was even elected as one of its officers after its creation. CAPASCO sent a memo to 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. Tamondong ignored said warning and made a reply letter invoking his right as a supervisory employee to join and organize a labor union. Thereafter CAPASCO terminated the employment of Tamondong on the ground of loss of trust and confidence, citing his union activities as acts constituting serious disloyalty to the company. Tamondong challenged his dismissal for being illegal and as an act involving unfair labor practice Though he admitted his active role in the formation of a union composed of supervisory personnel in the company, 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. CAPASCO contended that Tamondong's position as Personnel Superintendent and the functions actually performed by him in the company makes him 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. The LA ruled in favor of Tamondong. On appeal, the NLRC modified the ruling by dismissing the complaints for ULP and Illegal dismissal and also the award for damages but ordered the payment of backwages to Tamondong. On petition, the CA granted the nullification of the decision of the NLRC. Hence, this present Petition for Certiorari. ISSUE: WON the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in finding petitioner guilty of illegal dismissal and ULP? RULING: No. Where the issue or question involves or affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision, and not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision, the same is beyond the province of a petition for certiorari. In any event, granting arguendo, that the present petition is proper, still it is dismissible. 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. Tamondong may

    have possessed enormous powers and was performing important functions that goes with the position of Personnel Superintendent, nevertheless, there was no clear showing that he is at liberty, by using his own discretion and disposition, to lay down and execute major business and operational policies for and in behalf of CAPASCO.

    You might also like