matling vs. coros

8/9/2019 Matling vs. Coros

1/10

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 157802 October 13, 2010

MATLING INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL CORPORATION, RICARD !. SPENCER, CATERINE

SPENCER, AND ALE" MANCILLA,Petitioners,vs.RICARDO R. COROS,Respondent.

D ! I S I O N

#ERSAMIN, J.:

This case reprises the "urisdictional conundru# of $hether a co#plaint for ille%al dis#issal is co%ni&able b' the (abor)rbiter *()+ or b' the Re%ional Trial !ourt *RT!+. The deter#ination of $hether the dis#issed officer $as a re%ular

e#plo'ee or a corporate officer unravels the conundru#. In the case of the re%ular e#plo'ee, the () has "urisdictionother$ise, the RT! e-ercises the le%al authorit' to ad"udicate.

In this appeal via petition for revie$ on certiorari, the petitioners challen%e the decision dated Septe#ber /,01101and the resolution dated )pril 0, 011/,2both pro#ul%ated in !.).23.R. SP No. 4567 entitled Matlin%Industrial and !o##ercial !orporation, et al. v. Ricardo R. !oros and National (abor Relations !o##ission,

$hereb' b' the !ourt of )ppeals *!)+ sustained the rulin% of the National (abor Relations !o##ission *N(R!+ tothe effect that the () had "urisdiction because the respondent $as not a corporate officer of petitioner Matlin%Industrial and !o##ercial !orporation *Matlin%+.

A$tece%e$t&

)fter his dis#issal b' Matlin% as its Vice President for 8inance and )d#inistration, the respondent filed on )u%ust1, 0111 a co#plaint for ille%al suspension and ille%al dis#issal a%ainst Matlin% and so#e of its corporate officers*petitioners+ in the N(R!, Sub2Re%ional )rbitration 9ranch :II, Ili%an !it'.3

The petitioners #oved to dis#iss the co#plaint,4raisin% the %round, a#on% others, that the co#plaint pertained to the

"urisdiction of the Securities and -chan%e !o##ission *S!+ due to the controvers' bein% intra2corporate inas#uchas the respondent $as a #e#ber of Matlin%;s 9oard of Directors aside fro# bein% its Vice2President for 8inance and

)d#inistration prior to his ter#ination.

The respondent opposed the petitioners; #otion to dis#iss,5insistin% that his status as a #e#ber of Matlin%;s 9oardof Directors $as doubtful, considerin% that he had not been for#all' elected as such that he did not o$n a sin%le

share of stoc< in Matlin%, considerin% that he had been #ade to si%n in blan< an undated indorse#ent of the certificateof stoc< he had been %iven in ==0 that Matlin% had tauentl', his re#oval $as a corporate act ofMatlin% and the controvers' resultin% fro# such re#oval $as under the "urisdiction of the S!, pursuant to Section 5,

para%raph *c+ of Presidential Decree No. =10.R'()$* o+ te NLRC

The respondent appealed to the N(R!,7ur%in% that?

I

TH HONOR)9( ()9OR )R9ITR !OMMITTD 3R)V )9@S O8 DIS!RTION3R)NTIN3 )PP((;S MOTION TO DISMISS AITHO@T 3IVIN3 TH )PP(()NT )N

OPPORT@NITB TO 8I( HIS OPPOSITION THRTO THR9B VIO()TIN3 TH 9)SI!PRIN!IP( O8 D@ PRO!SS.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_157802_2010.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_157802_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_157802_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_157802_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_157802_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_157802_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_157802_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_157802_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_157802_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_157802_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_157802_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_157802_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_157802_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_157802_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_157802_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_157802_2010.html#fnt1


2/10

II

TH HONOR)9( ()9OR )R9ITR !OMMITTD )N RROR IN DISMISSIN3 TH !)S8OR ()!C O8 @RISDI!TION.

On March /, 011, the N(R! set aside the dis#issal, concludin% that the respondent;s co#plaint for ille%al dis#issal$as properl' co%ni&able b' the (), not b' the S!, because he $as not a corporate officer b' virtue of his position in

Matlin%, albeit hi%h ran


3/10

re#oved fro#, is not a corporate office despite its no#enclature, but an ordinar' office in the corporation.

!oros; alle%ed ille%al dis#issal therefro# is, therefore, $ithin the "urisdiction of the labor arbiter.

AHR8OR, the petition for certiorari is hereb' DISMISSD.

SO ORDRD.

The !) denied the petitioners; #otion for reconsideration on )pril 0, 011/.13

I&&'e

Thus, the petitioners are no$ before the !ourt for a revie$ on certiorari, positin% that the respondent $as a

stocuentl' erred in holdin% that the () had "urisdiction.

The decisive issue is $hether the respondent $as a corporate officer of Matlin% or not. The resolution of the issuedeter#ines $hether the () or the RT! had "urisdiction over his co#plaint for ille%al dis#issal.

R'()$*

The appeal fails.

I

The (a$ on urisdiction in Dis#issal !ases

)s a rule, the ille%al dis#issal of an officer or other e#plo'ee of a private e#plo'er is properl' co%ni&able b' the ().This is pursuant to )rticle 06 *a+ 0 of the (abor !ode, as a#ended, $hich provides as follo$s?

)rticle 06. Jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters and the Commission. 2 *a+ -cept as other$ise provided under this!ode, the (abor )rbiters shall have ori%inal and e-clusive "urisdiction to hear and decide, $ithin thirt' */1+ calendarda's after the sub#ission of the case b' the parties for decision $ithout e-tension, even in the absence of steno%raphicnotes, the follo$in% cases involvin% all $or


4/10


5/10

Section 05 of the !orporation !ode provides?

Section 05. !orporate officers, >uoru#.22I##ediatel' after their election, the directors of a corporation #ust for#all'

or%ani&e b' the election of a president, $ho shall be a director, a treasurer $ho #a' or #a' not be a director, asecretar' $ho shall be a resident and citi&en of the Philippines, $% &'c oter o++)cer& & be /ro6)%e% +or )$te b(&. )n' t$o *0+ or #ore positions #a' be held concurrentl' b' the sa#e person, e-cept that no one shall actas president and secretar' or as president and treasurer at the sa#e ti#e.

The directors or trustees and officers to be elected shall perfor# the duties en"oined on the# b' la$ and the b'2la$sof the corporation. @nless the articles of incorporation or the b'2la$s provide for a %reater #a"orit', a #a"orit' of thenu#ber of directors or trustees as fi-ed in the articles of incorporation shall constitute a >uoru# for the transaction ofcorporate business, and ever' decision of at least a #a"orit' of the directors or trustees present at a #eetin% at $hichthere is a >uoru# shall be valid as a corporate act, e-cept for the election of officers $hich shall re>uire the vote of a#a"orit' of all the #e#bers of the board.

Directors or trustees cannot attend or vote b' pro-' at board #eetin%s.

!onfor#abl' $ith Section 05, a position #ust be e-pressl' #entioned in the 9'2(a$s in order to be considered as acorporate office. Thus, the creation of an office pursuant to or under a 9'2(a$ enablin% provision is not enou%h to#a


6/10

No. V #erel' allo$ed Matlin%;s President to create non2corporate offices to be occupied b' ordinar' e#plo'ees ofMatlin%. Such po$ers $ere incidental to the President;s duties as the e-ecutive head of Matlin% to assist hi# in thedail' operations of the business.

The petitioners; reliance on Tabang su%rais #isplaced. The state#ent in Tabang, to the effect that offices note-pressl' #entioned in the 9'2(a$s but $ere created pursuant to a 9'2(a$ enablin% provision $ere also consideredcorporate offices, $as plainl' obiter dictumdue to the position sub"ect of the controvers' bein% #entioned in the 9'2(a$s. Thus, the !ourt held therein that the position $as a corporate office, and that the deter#ination of the ri%hts and

liabilities arisin% fro# the ouster fro# the position $as an intra2corporate controvers' $ithin the S!;s "urisdiction.

InNac%il v. #ntercontinental 'roadcasting Cor%oration23$hich #a' be the #ore appropriate rulin%, the positionsub"ect of the controvers' $as not e-pressl' #entioned in the 9'2(a$s, but $as created pursuant to a 9'2(a$enablin% provision authori&in% the 9oard of Directors to create other offices that the 9oard of Directors #i%ht see fitto create. The !ourt held there that the position $as a corporate office, rel'in% on the obiter dictum in Tabang.

!onsiderin% that the observations earlier #ade herein sho$ that the soundness of their dictais notunassailable,Tabang andNac%il should no lon%er be controllin%.

III

D)% Re&/o$%e$t& Stt'& & D)rector $%Stoc9o(%er A'tot)c(( Co$6ert )& D)&)&&()$to $ I$trCor/orte D)&/'te4

Bet, the petitioners insist that because the respondent $as a DirectorGstocuestion that is the sub"ect of their controvers'. This $as our thrust in (ira" v. Court of A%%eals?27

The establish#ent of an' of the relationships #entioned above $ill not necessaril' al$a's confer "urisdiction over the

dispute on the S! to the e-clusion of re%ular courts. The state#ent #ade in one case that the rule ad#its of noe-ceptions or distinctions is not that absolute. The better polic' in deter#inin% $hich bod' has "urisdiction over a case

$ould be to consider not onl' the status or relationship of the parties but also the nature of the >uestion that is thesub"ect of their controvers'.

Not ever' conflict bet$een a corporation and its stocuasi2"udicial po$ers. If, for e-a#ple, a person leases an apart#ento$ned b' a corporation of $hich he is a stocuestion that a co#plaint for his e"ect#ent

for non2pa'#ent of rentals $ould still co#e under the "urisdiction of the re%ular courts and not of the S!. 9' thesa#e to


7/10

the sa#e corporation. ) contrar' interpretation $ould dissipate the po$ers of the re%ular courts and distort the#eanin% and intent of PD No. =102).

In another case,)ainland Construction Co. #nc. v. )ovilla,28the !ourt reiterated these deter#inants thus$ise?

In order that the S! *no$ the re%ular courts+ can tauestion that is the sub"ect of their controvers'. In theabsence of an' one of these factors, the S! $ill not have "urisdiction. 8urther#ore, it does not necessaril' follo$that ever' conflict bet$een the corporation and its stocuasi2"udicial po$ers.29

The criteria for distin%uishin% bet$een corporate officers $ho #a' be ousted fro# office at $ill, on one hand, andordinar' corporate e#plo'ees $ho #a' onl' be ter#inated for "ust cause, on the other hand, do not depend on thenature of the services perfor#ed, but on the #anner of creation of the office. In the respondent;s case, he $assupposedl' at once an e#plo'ee, a stocuence indicates?=44 J 9oo


8/10

ran


9/10

2#d. pp.4/246.

3#d. pp. 4=261.

4#d.pp. 6267.

5#d. pp. =12=5.

6#d.pp. =42==.

7Id., pp. 112.

8Id., pp. 024.

9Id., pp. 6201.

10Id., pp. 0270.

11#d. pp. 7/277.

12Supra, at note .

13*u%ra at note 0.

14Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. =102).

15President strada approved the la$ on ul' =, 0111.

16Rollo, p. /5.

173.R. No.07/, anuar' 0, ==6, 044 S!R) 740, 746.

18Rollo, p. /7?

9B2()A NO. IIIDirectors and Officers

The directors shall be elected b' the stocualified unlessthe' shall be sooner re#oved as hereinafter provided provided, ho$ever, that the fore%oin%

provisions shall not appl' to the first 9oard of Directors $ho are appointed to serve until the ne-tannual #eetin% of the stoc


10/10

26Supra, at note 4.

273.R. No. =07, Nove#ber =, ==1, = S!R) /1, /002/0/.

283.R. No. 1, Nove#ber 0/, ==5, 051 S!R) 0=1, 0=720=5.

29See also *aura v. *aura Jr., 3.R. No. /45=, Septe#ber , ===, // S!R) 745Lo+ano v. De los*antos, 3.R. No. 0500, une =, ==6, 067 S!R) 750.

30

3.R. No. 71=/, 8ebruar' 01, 011, /50 S!R) /4, /06.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_157802_2010.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_157802_2010.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_157802_2010.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_157802_2010.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_157802_2010.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_157802_2010.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_157802_2010.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_157802_2010.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_157802_2010.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_157802_2010.html#rnt30

matling vs. coros

Documents