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.

Okol vs Slimmers World International, GR No. 160146, December 11, 2009

Facts:

Respondent Slimmers World International employed petitioner Leslie Okol. She rose up the ranks to become Head Office Manager and then Director and Vice President until her dismissal. Prior to Okol's dismissal, Slimmers World preventively suspended Okol. The suspension arose from the seizure by the Bureau of Customs of seven Precor elliptical machines and seven Precor treadmills belonging to or consigned to Slimmers World. Okol filed a complaint with the NLRC against Slimmers World, Behavior Modifications, Inc. and Moy for illegal suspension, illegal dismissal, unpaid commissions, damages and attorney's fees. Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss. The labor arbiter granted the motion to dismiss. The labor arbiter ruled that Okol was the vice-president of Slimmers World at the time of her dismissal. Since it involved a corporate officer, the dispute was an intra-corporate controversy falling outside the jurisdiction of the Arbitration branch. The NLRC reversed and set aside the labor arbiter's order. The appellate court set aside the NLRC's Resolution... and affirmed the labor arbiter's Order

 

 

Issue:

Whether or not the NLRC has jurisdiction over the illegal dismissal case filed by petitioner.

 

 

Ruling:

The petition lacks merit. Clearly, from the documents submitted by respondents, petitioner was a director and officer of Slimmers World. The charges of illegal suspension, illegal dismissal, unpaid commissions, reinstatement and back wages imputed by petitioner against respondents fall squarely within the ambit of intra-corporate disputes. In a number of cases, we have held that a corporate officer's dismissal is always a corporate act, or an intra-corporate controversy which arises between a stockholder and a corporation. Thus, the appellate court correctly ruled that it is not the NLRC but the regular courts which have jurisdiction over the present case. Petition denied.

Mainland Construction Co. Inc. vs Movilla, 320 Phil 353

Facts:

Ernesto Movilla, who was a Certified Public Accountant during his lifetime, was hired by Mainland in 1977.  Thereafter, he was promoted to the position of Administrative Officer with a monthly salary of P4,700.00. Ernesto Movilla, recorded as receiving a fixed salary of P4,700.00 a month, was registered with the Social Security System (SSS) as an employee of petitioner corporation.  His contributions to the SSS, Medicare and Employees Compensation Commission (ECC) were deducted from his monthly earnings by his said employer. DOLE conducted a routine inspection on petitioner corporation and found that it committed such irregularities in the conduct of its business as: "1. Underpayment of wages under R.A. 6727 and RTWPB-XI-01; Non-implementation of Wage Order No. RTWPB-XI-02; Unpaid wages for 1989 and 1990; Non-payment of holiday pay and service incentive leave pay; and Unpaid 13th month pay. On the basis of this finding, petitioner corporation was ordered by DOLE to pay to its thirteen employees, which included Movilla, the total amount of P309,435.89, representing their salaries, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay differentials, unpaid wages and 13th month pay. All the employees listed in the DOLE's order were paid by petitioner corporation, except Ernesto Movilla. On October 8, 1991, Ernesto Movilla filed a case against petitioner corporation and/or Lucita, Robert, and Ellen, all surnamed Carabuena, for unpaid wages, separation pay and attorney's fees, with the Department of Labor and Employment, Regional Arbitration, Branch XI, Davao City. On February 29, 1992, Ernesto Movilla died while the case was being tried by the Labor Arbiter and was promptly substituted by his heirs, private respondents herein, with the consent of the Labor Arbiter.

 

 

Issue:

Which has jurisdiction over the case, the SEC or the NLRC?

 

Held:

Since Ernesto Movilla's complaint involves a labor dispute, it is the NLRC, under Article 217 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, which has jurisdiction over the case at bench. In the case at bench, the claim for unpaid wages and separation pay filed by the complainant against petitioner corporation involves a labor dispute.  It does not involve an intra-corporate matter, even when it is between a stockholder and a corporation.  It relates to... an employer-employee relationship which is distinct from the corporate relationship of one with the other. Moreover, there was no showing of any change in the duties being performed by complainant as an Administrative Officer and as an Administrative Manager after his election by the Board of Directors.  What comes to the fore is whether there was a change in the nature of his functions and not merely the nomenclature or title given to his job.