You are on page 1of 1


CA respondent such as issuance of warning to employees with irregular

attendance and unauthorized leave of absences and requiring employees to
FACTS: explain regarding charges of abandonment of work, are normally performed
Petitioner CAPASCO, hired private respondent Tamondong as Assistant to by a mere supervisor, and not by a manager.
the Personnel Manager for its Cainta Plant. Thereafter, he was promoted to
the position of Personnel/Administrative Officer, and later to that of Personnel Article 212(m) of the Labor Code differentiates supervisory employees from
Superintendent. Tamondong was elected as an officer after actively involving managerial employees:
himself in the formation of the union among supervisory personnel, which was Supervisory employees
called CUSE. CAPASCO sent a memo Tamondong requiring him to explain - those who, in the interest of the employer, effectively recommend such
and to discontinue from his union activities, with a warning that a continuance managerial actions, if the exercise of such authority is not merely routinary
thereof shall adversely affect his employment in the company.Tamondong or clerical in nature but requires the use of independent judgment
ignored said warning and made a reply letter invoking his right as a Managerial employees
supervisory employee to join and organize a labor union. CAPASCO then
through a memo terminated the employment of Tamondong on the ground of
- those who are vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute
loss of trust and confidence, citing his union activities as acts constituting management policies and/or hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall,
serious disloyalty to the company. Tamondong challenged his dismissal for discharge, assign or discipline employees.
being illegal and as an act involving unfair labor practice by filing a Complaint
for Illegal Dismissal and Unfair Labor Practice before the NLRC. According to Tamondong was just a supervisory employee. The Labor Code provisions
him, there was no just cause for his dismissal because it was anchored solely regarding disqualification of a managerial employee from joining, assisting or
on his involvement and active participation in the organization of the union of forming any labor organization do not apply to Tamondong. It is an unfair
supervisory personnel in CAPASCO. Tamandong claimed that such was not a labor practice on the part of petitioner CAPASCO to dismiss Tamondong on
valid ground to terminate his employment because it was a legitimate exercise account of his union activities, thereby curtailing his constitutionally
of his constitutionally guaranteed right to self-organization. In contrast, guaranteed right to self-organization.
petitioner CAPASCO contended that he was considered as a managerial
employee, thus, under the law he was prohibited from joining a union as well With regard to the allegation that private respondent Tamondong was not only
as from being elected as one of its officers. a managerial employee but also a confidential employee, it has been settled
that an issue which was not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the
ISSUE: first time on appeal. In addition, petitioners failed to adduced evidence which
Whether or not Tamondong was a managerial employee disqualifying him will prove that Tamondong was also a confidential employee.
from joining, assisting or forming any labor organization? NO
Whether or not Tamondong was illegally dismissed? YES .

No clear showing that Tamondong had the discretion to lay down and execute
major business and operational policies for and in behalf of CAPASCO.
Tamondong may have been exercising certain important powers, such as
supervision over erring rank-and-file employees, however, he does not
possess the power to hire, transfer, terminate, or discipline erring employees
of the company. At the most, the record merely showed that Tamondong
informed and warned rank-and-file employees with respect to their violations
of CAPASCOs rules and regulations. Also, the functions performed by private