Scribd
Upload
78 views

Digested Case

King was hired and later promoted by Easycall Communications' general manager. He was later terminated allegedly due to poor performance. King filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC. The NLRC affirmed the dismissal but ordered indemnification for lack of due process. The CA ruled the dismissal was illegal, without cause, and violated due process rights. Easycall argues the NLRC lacked jurisdiction because King was a corporate officer. However, the Court found Easycall failed to prove King was a corporate officer under the law as it did not show his position was provided for in the by-laws and he was appointed by the general manager, not the board of directors. Thus, jurisdiction was properly with the NLRC, not the SEC

Uploaded by

Ehem Drp
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
78 views

Digested Case

King was hired and later promoted by Easycall Communications' general manager. He was later terminated allegedly due to poor performance. King filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC. The NLRC affirmed the dismissal but ordered indemnification for lack of due process. The CA ruled the dismissal was illegal, without cause, and violated due process rights. Easycall argues the NLRC lacked jurisdiction because King was a corporate officer. However, the Court found Easycall failed to prove King was a corporate officer under the law as it did not show his position was provided for in the by-laws and he was appointed by the general manager, not the board of directors. Thus, jurisdiction was properly with the NLRC, not the SEC

Uploaded by

Ehem Drp
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

G.R. No.

145901 December 15, 2005

EASYCALL COMMUNICATIONS PHILS., INC., Petitioner,


vs.
EDWARD KING, Respondent.

CORONA, J.:

FACTS:

King was an assistant to the general manager of Easycall Comm. Phils, he was hired by Mr. Malonzo, the general manager.
He rose to ranks from an assistant to the GM to VP for nationwide expansion. His promotion was based on his performance
during the six months preceding his appointment. . As vice president for nationwide expansion, he became responsible for
the sales and rentals of pager units in petitioner’s expansion areas. Sometime in 1993, King was scrutinized for his poor
performance and the fact that he spent 40% of his total number of working days for field works. He was later on terminated
on the ground of loss of confidence. King filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC, however the labor arbiter
found the dismissal to be valid. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the decision but with a modification that King be indemnified
in the amount of 10k for violating his right to due process. King filed a partial motion for recon insofar that it declared that
he was validly dismissed for cause. The NLRC denied this motion for lack of merit and also dismissed the complaint for
lack of jurisdiction.

King then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. The CA granted the petition and ruled that the NLRC erred in holding that
it lacked jurisdiction over the case. The CA also ruled that the dismissal of respondent was illegal for having been done
without cause and in violation of his right to due process. Hence this petition by Easycall, the latter argues that since
respondent was a "corporate officer," the NLRC had no jurisdiction over the subject matter under PD 902-A. ISSUES:

ISSUE:
WON CA committed an error in failing to consider that being a corporate office, the NLRC has no jurisdiction over
the subject under PD 902.A

RULING:

CA did not commit any error, KING is not a CORPORATE OFFICER.

Under Section 5 of PD 902-A, the law applicable at the time this controversy arose,6 the SEC, not the NLRC, had original
and exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the removal of corporate officers. Section 5(c) of PD 902-A applied to a
corporate officer’s dismissal for his dismissal was a corporate act and/or an intra-corporate controversy. However, it had
to be first established that the person removed or dismissed was a corporate officer before the removal or
dismissal could properly fall within the jurisdiction of the SEC and not the NLRC. Here, aside from its bare allegation,
petitioner failed to show that respondent was in fact a corporate officer. "Corporate officers" in the context of PD 902-A
are those officers of a corporation who are given that character either by the Corporation Code or by the
corporation’s by-laws.8 Under Section 25 of the Corporation Code, the "corporate officers" are the president,
secretary, treasurer and such other officers as may be provided for in the by-laws.

The burden of proof is on the party who makes the allegation.10 Here, petitioner merely alleged that respondent was a
corporate officer. However, it failed to prove that its by-laws provided for the office of "vice president for nationwide
expansion." Since petitioner failed to satisfy the burden of proof that was required of it, we cannot sanction its claim that
respondent was a "corporate officer" whose removal was cognizable by the SEC under PD 902-A and not by the NLRC
under the Labor Code.

An "office" is created by the charter of the corporation and the officer is elected by the directors or stockholders.11 On the
other hand, an employee occupies no office and generally is employed not by the action of the directors or stockholders but
by the managing officer of the corporation who also determines the compensation to be paid to such employee.12

In this case, respondent was appointed vice president for nationwide expansion by Malonzo, petitioner’s general manager,
not by the board of directors of petitioner. It was also Malonzo who determined the compensation package of respondent.
Thus, respondent was an employee, not a "corporate officer." The CA was therefore correct in ruling that jurisdiction over
the case was properly with the NLRC, not the SEC.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy