Scribd
Upload
168 views2 pages

Top Form MFG vs. NLRC

This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from the Philippines regarding the termination of an employee. Juliana Malubay was a supervisor for Top Form Manufacturing who was berated by the production manager for low productivity. In response, she told her co-supervisors to not come to work on Monday to teach the manager a lesson. The company then terminated her for loss of trust and confidence. The labor arbiter initially dismissed her complaint, but the NLRC reversed. The Supreme Court then ruled that Malubay's actions of initiating a boycott disrupted company operations and was grounds for termination as a managerial employee.

Uploaded by

Vina Langiden
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
168 views2 pages

Top Form MFG vs. NLRC

This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from the Philippines regarding the termination of an employee. Juliana Malubay was a supervisor for Top Form Manufacturing who was berated by the production manager for low productivity. In response, she told her co-supervisors to not come to work on Monday to teach the manager a lesson. The company then terminated her for loss of trust and confidence. The labor arbiter initially dismissed her complaint, but the NLRC reversed. The Supreme Court then ruled that Malubay's actions of initiating a boycott disrupted company operations and was grounds for termination as a managerial employee.

Uploaded by

Vina Langiden
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Top Form Mfg. Co., Inc. v.

NLRC
G.R. No. L-65706, December 11, 1992
FACTS:
Private respondent Juliana Malubay began her employment with petitioner Top Form
Manufacturing (Phils.), Incorporated in March, 1979, as Plant Supevisor. She was initially
assigned to supervise a factory line of sixty machine operators. After one month she was
given one more factory line, also with sixty workers, to supervise. In October, 1980, she was
promoted to the position of Over-All Quality Supervisor in the first shift. As Head Supervisor,
she had control and supervision over the entire first shift consisting of 120 machine
operators and some six line-in-charge. She was also responsible not only for the production
and output but also for the quality of products. In addition to her functions, she was likewise
given the task of training newly-hired factory workers and of supervising the repair group
composed of several employees. On January 10, 1981, a Saturday, private respondent and
her co-supervisors were called to a meeting at the conference room by Dickson Chan,
Production Manager. During the conference, Dickson Chan reviewed and examined as
usual the production report for the day and he declared that he was not satisfied with the
production output, berating private respondent and the other supervisors, thus:
You Filipinos are lazy people, and your Philippine laws are no good, even your
government is no good. In Hongkong, factory workers can buy the most expensive foods
and clothes in the world, but, here, you Filipinos are like beggars, it is just because you are
all lazy.
Thereafter, he crumpled the production report and again threw invectives at private
respondent and her co-supervisors, to wit:
You are bullshits, you Filipinos, get out, you are all lazy, you are like pigs, all of you
go home. I do not want to see your face again.
Not satisfied and contended with what he had said. Dickson Chan picked up the stapler on
his desk and, but for some better impulse, would have thrown the same at private
respondent and her companions who, frightened, as they were, dispersed.
As a result of this unfortunate incident, private respondent told and instructed her co-
supervisors, "Huwag pumasok sa lunes para matauhan si Dickson." Thus, on the next
working day, January 12, 1981, a Monday, they absented themselves from work. However,
on January 13, 1981, she and her companions reported for work. On January 16, 1981,
petitioner filed an application for clearance to terminate the services of private respondent on
the ground of "Loss of Management Confidence". Meanwhile, private respondent was placed
under preventive suspension leading to her termination effective January 13, 1981. On
January 19, 1981, private respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor
arbiter dismissed the Malubay’s complaint, however NLRC reversed the LA’s decision.

ISSUE:
Whether or not private respondent’s services may be terminated for loss of trust and
confidence.
RULING:
We cannot condone the act of private respondent in inciting her co-supervisors and
leading them in the boycott and wildcat strike. As aptly observed by the Labor Arbiter:
“Even assuming that complainant was berrated by the Production Manager due to
under par production output, her remedy is not to sabotage or boycott company operations;
she should have gone to higher management levels in order to redress her grievances
against her abusive immediate supervisor. Getting even with the company for the misdeed of
only one person, the Production Manager, is totally uncalled for.”
The Labor Code, specifically Article 283, acknowledges the right of the employer to
put an end to the covenant with the employee due to fraud and willful breach by the
employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or his duly authorized agent. Thus, the
act of private respondent in initiating and leading the boycott, thereby disrupting and
impairing company operations, is sufficient reason for petitioner to lose its trust and
confidence on private respondent, considering that the latter is a managerial employee of the
company whose position carries the corresponding highest degree of responsibility in
improving and upholding the interests of the employer and in exemplifying the utmost
standard of discipline and good conduct among her co-employees. Withal, the termination of
her employment is justified.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy