Prudential Bank and Trust Company vs Reyes, GR No. 141093, February 20, 2001

 

Facts:

Clarita Tan Reyes was appointed Accounting Clerk by Prudential Bank and Trust Company (bank) and rose to become supervisor. She was appointed Assistant Vice-President in the foreign department of the Bank, tasked with the duties, among others, to collect checks drawn against overseas banks payable in foreign currency and to ensure the collection of foreign bills or checks purchased, including the signing of transmittal letters covering the same, until her illegal dismissal. Her length of service with the bank was equivalent to 28 years. The auditors of the Bank discovered that two checks, received by the Bank were not sent out for collection to Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC) on her order until the said checks became stale. After thorough investigation, the Board has resolved not to re-elect her position here services were terminated. She filed a complaint for illegal suspension and illegal dismissal and alleged that alleged that the real reason for her dismissal was her filing of the criminal cases against the bank president, the vice president and the auditors of the Bank, such filing not being a valid ground for her dismissal. LA ruled in favor of Reyes however NLRC reversed the said decision and ruled that dismissal was valid. CA reinstated LA‘s decision hence this petition. The bank argued that the dispute is an intra corporate controversy as it does the non-election of private respondent to the position of Assistant Vice-President of the Bank which falls under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission (now the Regional Trial Court) under Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A.

 

 

Issue:

Whether the dispute is an intra-corporate controversy?

 

Ruling:

The bank‘s contention that she merely holds an elective position and that in effect she is not a regular employee is belied by the nature of her work and her length of service with the Bank. It has been stated that ―the primary standard of determining regular employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual trade or business of the employer. Additionally, ―an employee is regular because of the nature of work and the length of service, not because of the mode or even the reason for hiring them.‖ As Assistant Vice-President of the Foreign Department of the Bank she performs tasks integral to the operations of the bank and her length of service with the bank totaling 28 years speaks volumes of her status as a regular employee of the bank. In fine, as a regular employee, she is entitled to security of tenure; that is, her services may be terminated only for a just or authorized cause. Petitioner Bank can no longer raise the issue of jurisdiction under the principle of estoppel. The Bank participated in the proceedings from start to finish. It was only when the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of private respondent did it raise the issue of jurisdiction. The Bank actively participated in the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the Court of Appeals. . Hence, a party may be estopped or barred from raising the question of jurisdiction for the first time in a petition before the Supreme Court when it failed to do so in the early stages of the proceedings.