Facts:
Salvacion A. Lamadrid was hired by
Cathay Pacific Airways Limited in 1990 as a cabin crew based in Hong Kong and rose to the rank of Senior Purser with a monthly salary of HK$26,613, performing duties that included oversight of service and custody of company property in her assigned aircraft section. On May 19, 2007, at Sydney Airport, airport personnel confiscated from Lamadrid a 1.5 liter Evian water bottle and a pile of magazines and recorded the confiscation on her passport; the items were later sent to Cathay’s Hong Kong office and Cathay requested explanations from Lamadrid in letters dated May 22 and June 21, 2007, to which she replied denying theft and asserting ownership of the water bottle. On July 10, 2007, Cathay terminated Lamadrid for serious misconduct for removing company property without authorization, prompting Lamadrid to file a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims before the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on April 29, 2009 declaring illegal dismissal and awarding separation pay in lieu of reinstatement; both parties appealed to the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which, in its February 24, 2010 Decision, sustained the Labor Arbiter’s jurisdiction under
Republic Act No. 8042, found that Lamadrid’s position was not managerial but nonetheless imbued with trust and confidence, and ordered her reinstatement and a monetary award; the NLRC denied reconsideration on April 20, 2010. The
Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC on September 16, 2011, finding that Cathay validly dismissed Lamadrid for theft and dishonesty and dismissed her complaint, and this reversal led to the present Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
Did the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC have jurisdiction to hear and decide Lamadrid’s termination dispute under Article 224 [217] of the Labor Code and Section 10 of
Republic Act No. 8042, as amended by
RA 10022? Was
Salvacion A. Lamadrid illegally dismissed given the evidence of pilferage and the nature of her position as Senior Purser?
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: