Professional Documents
Culture Documents
~upreme QI:ourt
manila
FIRST DIVISION
MA. MERCEDES L. BARBA,
Petitioner,
Present:
SERENO, C.J.,
Chairperson,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BERSAMIN,
VILLARAMA, JR., and
PEREZ,* JJ
- versus -
Promulgated:
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DECISION
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the
March 29, 2010 Amended Decision 1 and September 14, 2010 Resolution2 of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 02508-MIN. The CA had
reconsidered its earlier Decision 3 dated October 22, 2009 and set aside the
September 25, 2007 and June 30, 2008 Resolutions4 of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) as well as the September 29, 2006 Decision5
of the Labor Arbiter. The CA held that the Labor Arbiter and NLRC had no
jurisdiction over the illegal dismissal case filed by petitioner against
Designated additional member per Special Order No. 1356 dated November 13, 2012.
Rollo, pp. 77-94. Penned by Associate Justice Leoncia R. Dimagiba with Associate Justices Rodrigo
F. Lim, Jr. and Danton Q. Bueser concurring.
Id. at 166-172. Penned by Associate Justice Leoncia R. Dimagiba with Associate Justices Rodrigo F.
Lim, Jr. and Ramon Paul L. Hernando concurring.
Id. at 54-76. Penned by Associate Justice Ruben C. Ayson with Associate Justices Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr.
and Leoncia Rea1-Dimagiba concurring.
Id. at 42-48, 50-52.
ld. at 34-41.
Decision
The
Decision
You are hereby re-appointed Dean of the College of Physical Therapy and
Doctor-In-Charge of the Rehabilitation Clinic at Rodolfo N. Pelaez Hall,
City Memorial Hospital and other rehabilitation clinics under the
management of Liceo de Cagayan University for a period of three years
effective July 1, 2002 unless sooner revoked for valid cause or causes.
Your position is one of trust and confidence and the appointment is subject
to the pertinent provisions of the University Administrative Personnel and
Faculty Manuals, and Labor Code.
xxxx
Decision
employment is not dependent on any teaching load. She then requested for
the processing of her separation benefits in view of the closure of the
College of Physical Therapy.11 She did not report to Palomares on June 1,
2005.
On June 8, 2005, petitioner followed up her request for separation pay
and other benefits but Dr. Lerin insisted that she report to Palomares;
otherwise, sanctions will be imposed on her.
counsel wrote Dr. Golez directly, asking for her separation pay and other
benefits.
On June 21, 2005, Dr. Magdale wrote petitioner a letter12 directing her
to report for work and to teach her assigned subjects on or before June 23,
2005. Otherwise, she will be dismissed from employment on the ground of
abandonment.
11
12
13
14
Id. at 25.
Annex I, id. at 65.
Id. at 66.
Annex L, id. at 68.
Decision
15
16
Supra note 5.
Id. at 41.
Decision
NLRCs Ruling
Petitioner appealed the above decision to the NLRC. On September
25, 2007, the NLRC issued a Resolution17 reversing the Labor Arbiters
decision and holding that petitioner was constructively dismissed.
The
NLRC held that petitioner was demoted when she was assigned as a
professor in the College of Nursing because there are functions and
obligations and certain allowances and benefits given to a College Dean but
not to an ordinary professor. The NLRC ruled:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the assailed decision is
hereby MODIFIED in that complainant is hereby considered as
constructively dismissed and thus entitled to backwages and separation
pay of one (1) month salary for every year of service, plus attorneys fees,
which shall be computed at the execution stage before the Arbitration
Branch of origin.
SO ORDERED.18
Decision
Respondent
posited that petitioner was a corporate officer since her office was created by
the by-laws and her appointment, compensation, duties and functions were
approved by the board of directors. Thus, respondent maintained that the
jurisdiction over the case is with the regular courts and not with the labor
tribunals.
In its original Decision21 dated October 22, 2009, the CA reversed and
set aside the NLRC resolutions and reinstated the decision of the Labor
Arbiter. The CA did not find merit in respondents assertion in its
Supplemental Petition that the position of petitioner as College Dean was a
corporate office.
Supra note 3.
Decision
This shows that it was not the intention of LDCU to make Dr.
Barba a corporate officer as it was stated in her letter of appointment
that the same shall be subject to the provisions of the Labor Code.
Otherwise, the appointment letter should have stated that her appointment
is governed by the Corporation Code. Thus, We find the arguments in the
Supplemental Petition on the matter of lack of jurisdiction of the Labor
Arbiter and the NLRC to be without merit. Dr. Barba, being a College
Dean, was not a corporate officer.22 (Emphasis not ours)
22
Id. at 64-66.
Decision
Supra note 1.
Id. at 93.
Supra note 2.
Decision
10
Decision
11
This contemplates a
denial of her motion for reconsideration of the original decision, but from
the date of petitioners receipt of the notice of denial of her motion for
reconsideration from the Amended Decision. And as petitioner received
notice of the denial of her motion for reconsideration from the Amended
Decision on September 23, 2010 and filed her petition on November 8,
2010, or within the extension period granted by the Court to file the petition,
her petition was filed on time.
Now on the main issue.
As a general rule, only questions of law may be allowed in a petition
for review on certiorari.26 Considering, however, that the CA reversed its
earlier decision and made a complete turnaround from its previous ruling,
and consequently set aside both the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the
NLRC for allegedly having been issued without jurisdiction, it is necessary
for the Court to reexamine the records and resolve the conflicting rulings.
26
Uy v. Centro Ceramica Corporation, G.R. No. 174631, October 19, 2011, 659 SCRA 604, 614.
Decision
12
After a careful review and examination of the records, we find that the
CAs previous ruling that petitioner was respondents employee and not a
corporate officer is supported by the totality of the evidence and more in
accord with law and prevailing jurisprudence.
27
28
29
Gomez v. PNOC Development and Management Corporation (PDMC), G.R. No. 174044, November
27, 2009, 606 SCRA 187, 194.
SEC. 25. Corporate officers, quorum. Immediately after their election, the directors of a corporation
must formally organize by the election of a president, who shall be a director, a treasurer who may or
may not be a director, a secretary who shall be a resident and citizen of the Philippines, and such other
officers as may be provided for in the by[-]laws. Any two (2) or more positions may be held
concurrently by the same person, except that no one shall act as president and secretary or as president
and treasurer at the same time.
The directors or trustees and officers to be elected shall perform the duties enjoined on them by
law and the by[-]laws of the corporation. Unless the articles of incorporation or the by[-]laws provide
for a greater majority, a majority of the number of directors or trustees as fixed in the articles of
incorporation shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of corporate business, and every decision of
at least a majority of the directors or trustees present at a meeting at which there is a quorum shall be
valid as a corporate act, except for the election of officers which shall require the vote of a majority of
all the members of the board.
Directors or trustees cannot attend or vote by proxy at board meetings.
G.R. No. 157802, October 13, 2010, 633 SCRA 12, 26.
Decision
13
On the other hand, the pertinent portions of the two board resolutions
appointing the various academic deans in the university including petitioner,
read as follows:
30
31
Decision
14
xxxx
RESOLVE, as it is hereby resolved, that pursuant to Section 3[,]
Article III and Section 1[,] Article V of the Corporations By-laws, the
various academic deans for the school years 1999-2002 of the University,
as recommended by the President of the Corporation, are hereby
appointed, whose names are enumerated hereunder and their respective
colleges and their honoraria are indicated opposite their names, all of them
having a three (3) year term, to wit:
Name and College
Honorarium
2,660.00
xxxx
RESOLVE, as it is hereby resolved, that pursuant to Section 3[,]
Article III and Section 1[,] Article V of the Corporations By-laws, the
various academic deans for the school years 2002-2005 of the University,
as recommended by the President of the Corporation, are hereby
appointed, whose names are enumerated hereunder and their respective
colleges and their honoraria are indicated opposite their names, all of them
having a three (3) year term, to wit:
Name and College
Honorarium
2,450.00
x x x x32
Petitioner, being an
academic dean, also held an administrative post in the university but not a
corporate office as contemplated by law. Petitioner was not directly elected
nor appointed by the board of directors to any corporate office but her
appointment was merely approved by the board together with the other
academic deans of respondent university in accordance with the procedure
prescribed in respondents Administrative Manual.33 The act of the board of
32
33
Decision
15
34
4.2.2.1. Appointed by: The President upon the recommendation of the VPAA and EVP and upon
approval of the Board of Directors for a definite term not to exceed three (3) years and subject to
reappointment. (Rollo, p. 83).
Supra note 29 at 27.
Decision
16
CA rollo, p. 195.
Rollo, p. 65.
Decision
17
concerning (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the
payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; (4) the employers power to
control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which the
work is to be accomplished, it is clear that there exists an employer-employee
relationship between petitioner and respondent. Records show that petitioner
was appointed to her position as Dean by Dr. Golez, the university president
and was paid a salary of P32,500 plus transportation allowance. It was
evident that respondent had the power of control over petitioner as one of its
deans. It was also the university president who informed petitioner that her
services as Dean of the College of Physical Therapy was terminated effective
March 31, 2005 and she was subsequently directed to report to the Acting
Dean of the College of Nursing for assignment of teaching load.
Thus, petitioner, being an employee of respondent, her complaint for
illegal/constructive dismissal against respondent was properly within the
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC.
Code provides:
ART. 217. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the Commission.
(a) Except as otherwise provided under this Code, the Arbiters shall
have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide xxx the
following cases involving all workers, whether agricultural or nonagricultural:
1. Unfair labor practice cases;
2. Termination disputes;
3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that
workers may file involving wage, rates of pay, hours of work and other
terms and conditions of employment;
4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of
damages arising from the employer-employee relations;
5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code,
including questions involving the legality of strikes and lockouts; and
6. Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social Security,
Medicare and maternity benefits, all other claims arising from employeremployee relations, including those of persons in domestic or household
service, involving an amount exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00)
regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement.
(b) The Commission shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction
over all cases decided by Labor Arbiters.
xxxx
Decision
18
appointed her as Dean of the College of Physical Therapy and Doctor-inCharge of the Rehabilitation Clinic for a period of three years effective July
1, 2002 unless sooner revoked for valid cause or causes.
Evidently,
Philippine Veterans Bank v. National Labor Relations Commission (Fourth Division), G.R. No.
188882, March 30, 2010, 617 SCRA 204, 211.
Decision
19
and
legitimate
grounds
such
as
genuine
business
In this case,
Decision
20
circumstances,
giving
petitioner
teaching
load
in
another
elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case
will amount to res judicata in another. Litis pendentia requires the
concurrence of the following requisites: (1) identity of parties, or at least
such parties as those representing the same interests in both actions; (2)
identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded on
the same facts; and (3) identity with respect to the two preceding particulars
in the two cases, such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending
case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata
in the other case.40
While there is identity of parties in the two cases, the causes of action
and the reliefs sought are different. The issue raised in the present case is
whether there was constructive dismissal committed by respondent. On the
other hand, the issue in the civil case pending before the RTC is whether
petitioner was guilty of breach of contract. Hence, respondent is not guilty
of forum shopping.
40
Yu v. Lim, G.R. No. 182291, September 22, 2010, 631 SCRA 172, 184.
Decision
21
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
~J~DtD~RO
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that
the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's
Division.
~, .., M'-c-.
,.