This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-12-02 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| First, the employer must show that the employee concerned holds a position of trust and confidence. Jurisprudence provides for two classes of positions of trust. The first class consists of managerial employees, or those who by the nature of their position, are entrusted with confidential and delicate matters and from whom greater fidelity to duty is correspondingly expected.[31] Article 212(m) of the Labor Code defines managerial employees as those who are "vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management polices and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees, or to effectively recommend such managerial actions." The second class includes "cashiers, auditors, property custodians, or those who, in the normal and routine exercise of their functions, regularly handle significant amounts of [the employer's] money or property"[32] | |||||
|
2012-06-13 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Thus, the first question to be addressed is whether Vallota held a position of trust and confidence. In previous cases, the following positions were classified under the second class of holders of positions of trust and confidence: a pharmaceutical company's district manager employed to handle pharmaceutical products for distribution to medical practitioners and sale to drug outlets,[34] a bank manager,[35] and an employee tasked with purchasing supplies and equipment.[36] The position of a contract claims assistant tasked with monitoring enforcement of contracts involving large sums of money was also classified to be analogous to this second class of holders of positions of trust and confidence.[37] | |||||