Gomez vs PNOC Development and Management Corp., GR No. 174044, November 27, 2009

Facts:

The respondent PDMC's board resolved to terminate petitioner Gomez's services retroactive on August 11, 1998, her retirement date. On January 5, 2000 the board informed petitioner of its decision. Thus, she further amended her complaint to include illegal dismissal. Respondent PDMC moved to have petitioner Gomez's complaint dismissed on ground of lack of jurisdiction. The Labor Arbiter granted the motion upon a finding that Gomez was a corporate officer and that her case involved an intra-corporate dispute that fell under the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) pursuant to Presidential Decree (P.D.) 902-A. On motion for reconsideration, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Third Division set aside the Labor Arbiter's order and remanded the case to the arbitration branch for further proceedings. The Third Division held that Gomez was a regular employee, not a corporate officer; hence, her complaint came under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter.
 Upon elevation of the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP 88819, however, the latter rendered a decision on May 19, 2006, reversing the NLRC decision. The CA held that since Gomez's appointment as administrator required the approval of the board of directors, she was clearly a corporate officer. Thus, her complaint is within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) under P.D. 902-A, as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) 8799. With the denial of her motion for reconsideration, Gomez filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioner Gomez was, in her capacity as administrator of respondent PDMC, an ordinary employee whose complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of wages and benefits is within the jurisdiction of the NLRC.

 

 

Held:

That petitioner Gomez served concurrently as corporate secretary for a time is immaterial. A corporation is not prohibited from hiring a corporate officer to perform services under circumstances which will make him an employee. Indeed, it is possible for one to have a dual role of officer and employee. In Elleccion Vda. De Lecciones v. National Labor Relations Commission, the Court upheld NLRC jurisdiction over a complaint filed by one who served both as corporate secretary and administrator, finding that the money claims were made as an employee and not as a corporate officer.