Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Cathay
Cathay
*
G.R. No. 164561. August 30, 2006.
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
227
228
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
_______________
229
2
the Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) in NLRC Case No. 017822-99 3
dated 25 August
1999, thereby, reinstating the Decision of Acting Executive
Labor Arbiter Pedro C. Ramos dated 7 August 1998; and
4
4
(2) the Resolution of the same court, dated 3 June 2004,
which denied the petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration.
Herein petitioners are Cathay Pacific Steel Corporation
(CAPASCO), a domestic corporation engaged in the
business of manufacturing steel products; Benjamin Chua,
Jr. (now deceased), the former CAPASCO President;
Virgilio Agerro, CAPASCO’s Vice-President; and Leonardo
Visorro, Jr., CAPASCO’s Administrative-Personnel
Manager. Herein private respondents are Enrique
Tamondong III, the Personnel Superintendent of
CAPASCO who was previously assigned at the petitioners’
Cainta Plant, and CAPASCO Union of Supervisory
Employees (CUSE), a duly registered union of CAPASCO.
The facts of the case are as follows:
Four former employees of CAPASCO originally filed this
labor case before the NLRC, namely: Fidel Lacambra,
Armando Dayson, Reynaldo Vacalares, and Enrique
Tamondong III. 5However, in the course6 of the proceedings,
Fidel Lacambra and Armando Dayson executed a Release
and Quitclaim, thus, waiving and abandoning any and all
claims that they may have against petitioner CAPASCO.
On 3 November 1999, Reynaldo 7
Vacalares also signed a
Quitclaim/Release/ Waiver. Hence, this Petition shall focus
solely on issues affecting private respondent Tamondong.
_______________
230
_______________
8 Id., at p. 73.
9 Id., at pp. 74-75.
10 Id., at pp. 94-95.
231
_______________
232
this Decision.”
_______________
233
_______________
14 Id., at p. 34.
15 Id., at pp. 241-260.
234
_______________
236
_______________
20 Id., at p. 481.
21 Id., at p. 480.
22 Land Bank of the Philippines v. Continental Watchman Agency
Incorporated, G.R. No. 136114, 22 January 2004, 420 SCRA 624, 630.
237
_______________
238
26
fault of the petitioner. Conversely, such was not the
situation in the present case. Hence, this Court finds no
reason to justify a liberal application of the rules.
Accordingly, 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, 27the
same is beyond the province of a petition for certiorari. It
is obvious in this case that the arguments raised by the
petitioners delved into the wisdom or legal soundness of
the Decision of the Court of Appeals, therefore, the proper
remedy is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule
45. Consequently, it is incumbent upon this Court to
dismiss this Petition.
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. In the Decision of the Court of Appeals
dated 28 October
28
2003, it made reference to the
Memorandum dated 12 September 1996, 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 29cited the case of
Engineering Equipment, Inc. v. NLRC where this Court
held
_______________
26 Id.
27 A.F. Sanchez Brokerage, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 147079, 21
December 2004, 447 SCRA 427, 436, citing Land Bank of the Philippines
v. Court of Appeals, supra note 18 at p. 482.
28 Rollo, p. 103.
29 218 Phil. 719, 726; 133 SCRA 752, 760-761 (1984).
239
30
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.
Moreover, the Court of Appeals also held that upon
careful examination of the documents submitted before it,
it found out that:
_______________
240
_______________
241
34
labor practice on the part of petitioner CAPASCO to
dismiss him on account of his union activities, thereby
curtailing his35 constitutionally guaranteed right to self-
organization.
With regard to the allegation that private respondent
Tamondong was not only a managerial employee but also a
confidential employee, the same cannot be validly raised in
this Petition for Certiorari. It is settled that an issue which
was not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the
first time on appeal. This principle36applies to a special civil
action for certiorari under Rule 65. In addition, petitioners
failed to adduced evidence which will prove that, indeed,
private respondent was also a confidential employee.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant
Petition is DISMISSED. The Decision and Resolution of the
Court of Appeals dated 28 October 2003 and 3 June 2004,
respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 57179, which annulled the
Decision of the NLRC in NLRC Case No. 017822-99 dated
25 August 1999, thereby, reinstating the Decision of Acting
Executive Labor Arbiter Pedro C. Ramos dated 7 August
1998, is hereby AFFIRMED. With costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
——o0o——
_______________
242