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.

Tabang vs NLRC, 266 SCRA 462

Facts:

Purificacion Tabang was a founding member, a member of the Board of Trustees, and the corporate secretary of private respondent Pamana Golden Care Medical Center Foundation, Inc.,a non-stock corporation engaged in extending medical and surgical services. The Board of Trustees issued a memorandum appointing petitioner as Medical Director and Hospital Administrator of private respondent's Pamana Golden Care Medical Center in Calamba, Laguna.
 Petitioner was allegedly informed personally by Dr. Ernesto Naval that in a special meeting held on April 30, 1993, the Board of Trustees passed a resolution relieving her of her position as Medical Director and Hospital Administrator, and appointing the latter and Dr. Benjamin Donasco as acting Medical Director and acting Hospital Administrator, respectively. Petitioner averred that she thereafter received a copy of said board resolution. On June 6, 1993, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of wages, allowances and 13th month pay before the labor arbiter. Respondent corporation moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. It argued that petitioner's position as Medical Director and Hospital Administrator was interlinked with her position as member of the Board of Trustees, hence, her dismissal is an intra-corporate controversy which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Petitioner opposed the motion to dismiss, contending that her position as Medical Director and Hospital Administrator was separate and distinct from her position as member of the Board of Trustees. She claimed that there is no intra-corporate controversy involved since she filed the complaint in her capacity as Medical Director and Hospital Administrator, or as an employee of private respondent.

 

Issue:

Which has jurisdiction over the case at bar?

 

 

Held:

We agree with the findings of the NLRC that it is the SEC which has jurisdiction over the case at bar. The charges against herein private respondent partake of the nature of an intra-corporate controversy. Similarly, the determination of the rights of petitioner and the concomitant liability of private respondent arising from her ouster as a medical director and/or hospital administrator, which are corporate offices, is an intra-corporate controversy subject to the jurisdiction of the SEC. Contrary to the contention of petitioner, a medical director and a hospital administrator are considered as corporate officers under the by-laws of respondent corporation. Section 2(i), Article I thereof states that one of the powers of the Board of Trustees is "(t)o appoint a Medical Director, Comptroller/Administrator, Chiefs of Services and such other officers as it may deem necessary and prescribe their powers and duties."

Union Motors vs NLRC, 314 SCRA 531, 539

 

Facts:

Alejandro Etis was hired by Union Motors as an automotive mechanic at the service department in its Paco Branch. In 1994, he was transferred to Caloocan City branch, where his latest monthly salary was P6,330.00. During his employment, he was awarded the "Top Technician" for the month of May in 1995 and Technician of the Year (1995), and received several other awards that year. Etis made a phone call to Rosita de la Cruz, the company nurse, and informed her that he had to take a sick leave as he had a painful and unbearable toothache. The next day, he again phoned de la Cruz and told her that he could not report to work because he still had to consult a doctor. Finding that Etis' ailment was due to tooth inflammation, the doctor referred her to the dentist for further check-up. Because of several absences, Union Motors issued an Office Memorandum terminating the services of Etis for having incurred these absences without notification. To them, it was considered abandonment under Sec. 6.1.1. Article III of the Company Rules. Eventually his dentist successfully extracted Etis' tooth and as soon as he recovered, he reported back to work. Unfortunately he was denied entrance to the company premises; and was also informed that his employment had already been terminated. Soon he filed before the NLRC a complaint for illegal dismissal. Etis allege that he was dismissed from his employment without just and legal basis, while Union Motors averred that his dismissal was justified by his ten unauthorized absences. It posited that under Article 282 of the Labor Code, an employee's gross and habitual neglect of his duties is a just cause for termination. It further alleged that the respondent's repetitive and habitual acts of being absent without notification constituted nothing less than abandonment, which is a form of neglect of duties. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint on the ground that Etis' failure to report to work for 10 days without approved leave of absence is a gross neglect of duty. On appeal to the NLRC, it reversed the LA's decision ordering reinstatement to Etis. In the CA, it agreed with the NLRC that medical certificates need not be notarized in order to be admitted as evidence.

 

 

Issue:

Is it a valid dismissal?

 

Ruling:

No. Dismissal is the ultimate penalty that can be meted to an employee. Thus, it must be based on just cause and must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. To effect a valid dismissal, the law requires not only that there must be a just and valid cause for termination; it must likewise enjoin the employer to afford the employee the opportunity to be heard and defend himself. The Labor Code enumerates the just causes for the termination of employment by the employer. Second, to warrant removal from the service, the negligence should not merely be gross but also habitual. Gross negligence implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.