Villuga v. NLRC Digest

Villuga v. National Labor Relations Commission

Petitioner Villuga was employed by Private Respondent Zapanta (of Broad St. Tailoring) as a cutter.  He was also tasked to distribute work to other tailors and sewers when the shop manager or assistant is not around and makes sure that the work conform to the pattern given. The other petitioners  were ironers,  repairmen and sewers who were paid on piecerate basis.  The petitioners did not fill in any time record since they did not work on fixed hours,  they also work at home when job orders increased.  Villuga got ill and was not able to report to work for a few days but has notified the employer.  Subsequently,  he was considered to have abandoned his job.  This prompted Villuga to file a complaint on the ground that he was refused back to work due to an alleged participation to a union organized by the tailors.  The other petitioners claimed that they were dismissed due to union participation.  The Labor Arbiter dismissed their complaint,  the NLRC affirmed the dismissal.

Issue:   W/N petitioner Villuga is a managerial employee

RULING:   No.  Villuga's  primary work is to cut or prepare patterns and not to lay down management policies since there is already a manager/assistant in-charge of this exact responsibility.   Note that he only distributes or assigns work occasionally and does not take part in policy-making activities.
The test of 'supervisory' or managerial status depends on whether a person possesses the authority that is not merely routinary/clerical in nature but one that requires the use of independent judgement.  Note that your functions are not managerial if you only execute approved and established policies.

Requirements to be considered one to be part of the managerial staff is laid down in Rule 1,  Sec. 2(c)  Book III),  as follows:
1) Performance of work directly related to management policies.
2)  Customarily/regularly exercise discretion and independent judgement in the performance of his functions.
3)  Regularly/directly assists in managing the establishment.
4)  Does not devote 20% of his time to work other than those described above.

Finally,  there was no abandonment of work by Villuga,  1) to be considered as such, his act must be deliberate and an unjustified refusal and accompanied by overt acts,  mere absence is not a sufficient ground.

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE TO READ
Labor Law Digests

About the Blogger
*She holds a postgraduate in Industrial Relations major in Human Resource Management from University of the Philippines (UP) School of Labor and Industrial Relations (SOLAIR) and is currently on-leave from her law studies.