NACPIL vs Intercontinental Broadcasting Corp., GR No. 144767, March 21, 2002

 

Facts:

Petitioner states that he was Assistant General Manager for Finance/Administration and Comptroller of private respondent Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation (IBC) from 1996 until April 1997. According to petitioner, when Emiliano Templo was appointed to replace IBC President Tomas Gomez III sometime in March 1997, the former (Templo) told the Board of Directors that as soon as he assumes the IBC presidency, he would terminate the services of petitioner. Apparently, Templo blamed petitioner, along with a certain Mr. Basilio and Mr. Gomez, for the prior mismanagement of IBC. Upon his assumption of the IBC presidency, Templo allegedly harassed, insulted, humiliated and pressured petitioner into resigning until the latter was forced to retire. However, Templo refused to pay him his retirement benefits. Furthermore, Templo allegedly refused to recognize petitioner’s employment, claiming that petitioner was not the Assistant General Manager/Comptroller of IBC but merely usurped the powers of the Comptroller. Hence, petitioner filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of benefits. Instead of filing its position paper, IBC filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction over the case. IBC contended that petitioner was a corporate officer who was duly elected by the Board of Directors of IBC; hence, the case qualifies as an intra-corporate dispute falling within the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). However, the motion was denied by the Labor Arbiter in an Order. The Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision stating that petitioner had been illegally dismissed. IBC appealed to the NLRC, but the same was dismissed in a Resolution. IBC then filed a motion for reconsideration that was likewise denied. IBC then filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, which petition was granted by the appellate court in its Decision which reversed and set aside the decision of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the appellate court. Hence, this petition.

 

 

Issue:

Whether the Labor Arbiter had jurisdiction over the case for illegal dismissal and non-payment of benefits filed by petitioner.

 

Ruling:

The Court finds that the Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction over the same. Under Presidential Decree No. 902-A (the Revised Securities Act), the law in force when the complaint for illegal dismissal was instituted by petitioner in 1997, the following cases fall under the exclusive of the SEC:

a) Devices or schemes employed by or any acts of the board of directors, business associates, its officers or partners, amounting to fraud and misrepresentation which may be detrimental to the interest of the public and/or of the stockholders, partners, members of associations or organizations registered with the Commission;

b) Controversies arising out of intra-corporate or partnership relations, between and among stockholders, members or associates; between any or all of them and the corporation, partnership or association of which they are stockholders, members or associates, respectively; and between such corporation, partnership or association and the State insofar as it concerns their individual franchise or right to exist as such entity;

c) Controversies in the election or appointment of directors, trustees, officers, or managers of such corporations, partnerships or associations;

d) Petitions of corporations, partnerships, or associations to be declared in the state of suspension of payments in cases where the corporation, partnership or association possesses property to cover all of its debts but foresees the impossibility of meeting them when they respectively fall due or in cases where the corporation, partnership or association has no sufficient assets to cover its liabilities, but is under the Management Committee created pursuant to this decree.

The Court has consistently held that there are two elements to be considered in determining whether the SEC has jurisdiction over the controversy, to wit: (1) the status or relationship of the parties; and (2) the nature of the question that is the subject of their controversy.

Lozon vs NLRC GR No. 107660, January 2, 1995, 240 SCRA 1

 

Facts:

Petitioner Ramon C. Lozon, a certified public accountant, was a Senior Vice-President-Finance of Private respondent Philippine Airlines, Inc. (“PAL”), when his services were terminated  in the aftermath of the much-publicized “two-billion-peso PAL scam.” Aggrieved, petitioner, filed with the National Labor Relations Commission (“NLRC”) in Manila for illegal dismissal and for reinstatement, with back wages and “fringe benefits such as Vacation leave, Sick leave, 13th month pay, Christmas Bonus, Medical Expenses, car expenses, trip pass entitlement, etc., plus moral damages of P40 Million, exemplary damages of P10 Million and reasonable attorney’s fees.”

  

Issue:

Whether or not the NLRC has jurisdiction over the illegal dismissal case in a corporation.

 

Held:

No. Labor Arbiters have no jurisdiction over termination of corporate officers and stockholders which, under the law, is considered intra-corporate dispute. It must be emphasized that a corporate officer’s dismissal is always a corporate act and/or intra-corporate controversy and that nature is not altered by the reason or wisdom which the Board of Directors may have in taking such action. The Regional Trial Courts now have jurisdiction under RA 8799(Securities Regulation Act of 2000). Jurisdiction of RTC includes adjudication of monetary claims of the corporate officer who was dismissed, such as unpaid salaries, leaves, 13th month pay, damages and attorney’s fee.

Perpetual Help Credit Cooperative, Inc. vs Faburada, GR No. 121948, October 8, 2001

 

Facts:

Private respondents Faburada et. al. filed a complaint against   PHCCI for illegal dismissal, premium pay, separation pay, wage differential, moral damages and attorney’s fees PHCCI filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that noemployer-employee relationship exists since privaterespondents are all members and co-owners of thecooperative. Also, private respondents have not exhausted the remedies provided in the coop by laws. PHCCI also filed a supplemental motion to dismiss alleging that RA 6939, the Cooperative Development Authority Law, requires conciliation or mediation within the cooperative before a resort to judicial proceeding. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the private respondents, holding that the case is impressed with employer-employee relationship and that the laws on cooperatives is subservient to the Labor Code. The NLRC affirmed.

 

Issue: 

Whether or not there is an employer-employee relationship between the parties and WON private respondents were regular employees

 

Held:

Yes. Elements in determining existence of employer-employee relationship:

1) Selection and engagement of the worker or the power to hire

2) The power to dismiss

3) Payment of wages by whatever means

4) Power to control the worker’s conduct. 

The   above elements are present here. PHCCI through its Manager Mr. Edilberto Lantaca, Jr. hired respondents as Computer   programmer and clerks. They worked regular working hours, were assigned specific duties, were paid regular wages, and made to accomplish regular time records, and worked under the supervision of the manager.