FIRST
DIVISION
MAINLAND
CONSTRUCTION, CO., INC.,
and/or LUCITA LU CARABUENA, ROBERT
L. CARABUENA, ELLEN LU CARABUENA,
and MARTIN LU,
Petitioners,
G. R. No. 118088
November 23, 1995
-versus-
MILA
MOVILLA, ERNESTO MOVILLA, JR.,
MILA JUDITH C. MOVILLA, JUDE BRIX C.chanrobles virtual law library
MOVILLA, JONARD ELLERY C. MOVILLA,
and MAILA JONAH M. QUIMBO, Surviving
Heirs of ERNESTO MOVILLA, and THE
HON. COMMISSIONER of the NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION-5TH DIVISION,
Respondents.
D
E C I S I O N
HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:
Petitioners
urge this Court to set aside the
Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission [NLRC] dated May
30,
1994 in NLRC-CA No. M-000949-92 for having been rendered with grave
abuse
of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. This reversed the
decision
of the Labor Arbiter in Case No. RAB-11-10-99883-91. Petitioners'
Motion
for Reconsideration of the NLRC Decision was denied in a Resolution
dated
August 31, 1994.
Mainland
Construction Co., Inc. is a domestic
corporation, duly organized and existing under Philippine laws, having
been issued a Certificate of Registration by the Securities and
Exchange
Commission [SEC] on July 26, 1977 under Registry Number 74691. Its
principal
line of business is the general construction of roads and bridges and
the
operation of a service shop for the maintenance of equipment.
Respondents,
on the other hand, are the surviving heirs of complainant, Ernesto
Movilla,
who died during the pendency of the action with the Labor Arbiter.cralaw:red
Records show that
Ernesto Movilla, who was a Certified
Public Accountant during his lifetime, was hired as such by Mainland in
1977. Thereafter, he was promoted to the position of Administrative
Officer
with a monthly salary of P4,700.00.[1] Ernesto Movilla, recorded
as
receiving
a fixed salary of P4,700.00 a month, was registered with the Social
Security
System [SSS] as an employee of petitioner Corporation. His
contributions
to the SSS, Medicare and Employees Compensation Commission [ECC] were
deducted
from his monthly earnings by his said employer.[2]
On April 12,
1987, during petitioner corporation's
annual meeting of stockholders, the following were elected members of
the
Board of Directors, viz.: Robert L. Carabuena, Ellen L. Carabuena,
Lucita
Lu Carabuena, Martin G. Lu and Ernesto L. Movilla.cralaw:red
On the same day,
an organizational meeting was
held and the Board of Directors elected Ernesto Movilla as
Administrative
Manager.[3]
He occupied the said position up to the time of his death.
On April 2, 1991, the Department of Labor and
Employment [DOLE] conducted a routine inspection on petitioner
corporation
and found that it committed such irregularities in the conduct of its
business
as:
1. Underpayment of wages under R. A. 6727
and
RTWPB-XI-01;
2. Non-implementation of Wage Order
No.
RTWPB-XI-02;
3. Unpaid wages for 1989 and 1990;
4. Non-payment of holiday pay and
service
incentive
leave pay; and
5. Unpaid 13th-month pay [remaining
balance
for
1990].[4]
On the basis of
this finding, petitioner corporation
was ordered by DOLE to pay to its thirteen employees which included
Movilla,
the total amount of P309,435.89, representing their salaries, holiday
pay,
service incentive leave pay differentials, unpaid wages and 13th month
pay. All the employees listed in the DOLE's Order were paid by
petitioner
corporation, except Ernesto Movilla. On October 8, 1991, Ernesto
Movilla
filed a case against petitioner corporation and/or Lucita, Robert, and
Ellen, all surnamed Carabuena, for unpaid wages, separation pay and
attorney's
fees, with the Department of Labor and Employment, Regional
Arbitration,
Branch XI, Davao City.
On February 29,
1992, Ernesto Movilla died while
the case was being tried by the Labor Arbiter and was promptly
substituted
by his heirs, private respondents herein, with the consent of the Labor
Arbiter.
The Labor Arbiter rendered judgment on June 26,
1992, dismissing the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Specifically,
the Labor Arbiter made the following ratiocination:
It is clear that in the case at bar, the
controversy
presented by complainant is intra-corporate in nature and is within the
jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to P.
D.
902-A [Philippine School of Business Administration, et al. v. Leano,
G.
R. No. L-58468, February 24, 1984; Dy et al. v. NLRC, et al., G.R. No.
L-68544, October 27, 1986]. What Movilla is claiming against
respondents
are his alleged unpaid salaries and separation pay as Administrative
Manager
of the corporation for which position he was appointed by the Board of
Directors. His claims, therefore, fall under the jurisdiction of the
Securities
and Exchange Commission because this is not a simple labor problem; but
a matter that comes within the area of corporate affairs and
management,
and is in fact a corporate controversy in contemplation of the
Corporation
Code. [Fortune Cement Corporation v. NLRC, et al., G. R. No. 79762,
January
24, 1991].[5]
Aggrieved by
this decision, respondents appealed
to the National Labor Relations Commission [NLRC]. The NLRC ruled that
the issue in the case was one which involved a labor dispute between an
employee and petitioner corporation and, thus, the NLRC had
jurisdiction
to resolve the case. The dispositive portion of the NLRC decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision is
Reversed
and Set Aside. Respondents are ordered to pay the heirs of complainant
the following:
1. Unpaid salaries from January 1989 to
September
1991 in the sum of P155,100.00;
2. Separation pay in the sum of
P65,800.00;
3. Moral damages in the sum of
P10,000.00;
4. Indemnity in the sum of P3,000.00;
and,
5. Attorney's fees equivalent to 10%
of the
total
award.[6]
The pivotal
issue in this case is which of the two
agencies of the government, the NLRC or the SEC, has jurisdiction over
the controversy.
As We stated
earlier, it is, of course, the contention
of petitioners that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion when
it
nullified the decision of the Labor Arbiter which dismissed the
complaint
of Movilla for unpaid wages, separation pay and attorney's fees on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction. Petitioners take the position that
since
Ernesto Movilla was a corporate officer, the controversy as to his
compensation
is within the jurisdiction of the SEC as mandated by P.D. 902-A and not
with the NLRC.cralaw:red
We find for the
respondents, it appearing that
petitioners' contention is bereft of merit.cralaw:red
In order that the
SEC can take cognizance of a
case, the controversy must pertain to any of the following
relationships:
(a) between the corporation, partnership or association and the public;
(b) between the corporation, partnership or association and its
stockholders,
partners, members or officers; (c) between the corporation, partnership
or association and the State as far as its franchise, permit or license
to operate is concerned; and (d) among the stockholders, partners or
associates
themselves.[7]
The fact that the parties involved in the controversy are all
stockholders
or that the parties involved are the stockholders and the corporation,
does not necessarily place the dispute within the ambit of the
jurisdiction
of SEC. The better policy to be followed in determining jurisdiction
over
a case should be to consider concurrent factors such as the status or
relationship
of the parties or the nature of the question that is the subject of
their
controversy.[8]
In the absence of any one of these factors, the SEC will not have
jurisdiction.
Furthermore, it does not necessarily follow that every conflict between
the corporation and its stockholders would involve such corporate
matters
as only the SEC can resolve in the exercise of its adjudicatory or
quasi-judicial
powers.[9]
In the case at
bench, the claim for unpaid wages
and separation pay filed by the complainant against petitioner
corporation
involves a labor dispute. It does not involve an intra-corporate
matter,
even when it is between a stockholder and a corporation. It relates to
an employer-employee relationship which is distinct from the corporate
relationship of one with the other. Moreover, there was no showing of
any
change in the duties being performed by complainant as an
Administrative
Officer and as an Administrative Manager after his election by the
Board
of Directors. What comes to the fore is whether there was a change in
the
nature of his functions and not merely the nomenclature or title given
to his job.cralaw:red
Indeed, Ernesto
Movilla worked as an Administrative
Officer of the company for several years and was given a fixed salary
every
month. To further sustain this assertion, Movilla also submitted a
joint
affidavit executed by Juanito S. Malubay and Delia S. Luciano, Project
Engineer and Personnel-In-Charge, respectively, of petitioner
corporation,
attesting that they personally knew Movilla and that he was employed in
the company. A premium certification issued by an authorized
representative
of petitioners was also presented to show his actual monthly earnings
as
well as his monthly contributions to the SSS, Medicare and ECC.[10]
Movilla's registration in the SSS by petitioner corporation added
strength
to the conclusion that he was petitioner corporation's employee as
coverage
by the said law is predicated on the existence of an employer-employee
relationship.[11]
Furthermore, petitioner corporation failed to present evidence which
showed
that after his election as Administrative Manager, he was excluded from
the coverage of the SSS, Medicare and ECC.cralaw:red
He also
presented, appearing to be relevant to
the issue, the result of the investigation conducted by DOLE which
found
that petitioner corporation has transgressed several labor standard
laws
against its employees.cralaw:red
As correctly
ruled by the NLRC:
The claims for unpaid salaries/monetary
benefits
and separation pay, are not a corporate conflict as respondents
presented
them to be. If complainant is not an employee, respondent should have
contested
the DOLE inspection report, What they did was to exclude complainant
from
the order of payment and worse, he was not both given responsibilities
and paid his salaries for the succeeding months. This is a clear
case of constructive dismissal without due process.[12]
The existence
of an employer-employee relationship
is a factual question and public respondent's findings are accorded
great
weight and respect as the same are supported by substantial evidence.[13]
Hence, We uphold the conclusion of public respondent that Ernesto
Movilla
was an employee of petitioner corporation.
It is pertinent
to note that petitioner corporation
is not prohibited from hiring its corporate officers to perform
services
under a circumstance which will make him an employee.[14]
Moreover, although a director of a corporation is not, merely by virtue
of his position, its employee, said director may act as an employee or
accept duties that make him also an employee.[15]
Since Ernesto
Movilla's complaint involves a labor
dispute, it is the NLRC, under Article 217 of the Labor Code of the
Philippines,
which has jurisdiction over the case at bench.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the
petition is dismissed for lack
of showing of any grave abuse of discretion on the part of public
respondent
NLRC. The assailed decision of public respondent is thus affirmed.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Padilla, Davide,
Jr., Bellosillo and Kapunan,
JJ., concur.cralaw:red
___________________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Rollo, p. 17.
[2]
Annex "F" of Respondents' Position Paper.
[3]
Rollo, p. 28.
[4]
Id., p. 16.
[5]
Rollo, pp. 29-30.
[6]
Rollo, p. 18.
[7]
Magalad v. Premiere Financing Corporation, 209 SCRA 260 [1992].
[8]
Torio v. Court of Appeals, 230 SCRA 626 [1994].
[9]
Viray v. Court of Appeals, 191 SCRA 308 [1990].
[10]
Annex "F" of Private Respondents' Position Paper.
[11]
Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Maalat, 187 SCRA 108 [1990]; Flores
v. Nuestro, 160 SCRA 568 [1988].
[12]
Rollo, p. 18.
[13]
Cathedral School of Technology v. NLRC, 214 SCRA 551 [1992].
[14]
See Gregorio Araneta University Foundation v. Teodoro, 167 SCRA 79
[1988];
Agpalo, Comments on the Corporation Code of the Philippines, 1st Ed.
[1994]
p. 116.
[15]
18 Am Jur 1346. |