ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 144791.December 6, 2000]

SOLIDBANK CORP. vs. DANILO H. LAZARO

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 6 2000.

G.R. No. 144791(Solidhank Corporation, et. al. v. Danilo H. Lazaro.)

Private respondent Lazaro was the Vice President and Head of the Branch Banking Group, Region VI, of petitioner Solidbank Corporation. Sometime in 1996, he tendered his resignation effective February 15, 1996 after he was implicated in an anomaly involving huge losses to the bank. Criminal charges were filed against several individuals, although respondent Lazaro was not included in the complaint. Petitioner Solidbank did not act initially on Lazaro's letter of resignation, but it later terminated his employment effective November 30, 1996.

Respondent Lazaro filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of wages and benefits. After the parties had submitted their respective position papers, the labor arbiter dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the suit involved an intra-corporate dispute falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the arbiter's ruling but, upon Lazaro's motion, it reconsidered its decision and remanded the case to the labor arbiter for further proceedings. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, but their petition was dismissed and the case was remanded to the arbiter for a decision on the merits. The Court of Appeals denied their motion for reconsideration. Hence this petition.

Petitioners contend that private respondent was a "corporate officer" within the purview of the Corporation Code and, therefore, his dismissal was a corporate act and thus raised an intra-corporate controversy cognizable by the SEC.

The contention has no merit. In Mainland Construction Co., Inc. v. Movilla, ¹ 250 SCRA 290, 295 (1995).it was held that a suit for illegal dismissal filed by a corporate officer (administrative manager) is cognizable by the NLRC and not by the SEC. The view was there expressed that the better policy to be followed in determining whether the case falls within the jurisdiction of the SEC or the NLRC would be to consider such factors as the status of the parties and the nature of the question that is the subject of the controversy, and not whether the employee is an officer or a stockholder of the corporation.

In this case, it is undisputed that petitioner Solidbank first hired private respondent in 1992 as head of its Binondo Cash Department or Chief Cashier with AVP level. He was subsequently appointed as Head, Branch Banking Group, Region VI and then, in December 1993, as concurrent head of the Branch Administration and Support Division. In January 1994, he was appointed Vice President and concurrent head, again, of the Branch Banking Group for Region VI. Throughout his employment, there is nothing to show that respondent was ever treated other than as a salaried employee, albeit of a high rank, by petitioner Solidbank. He was not even a stockholder nor a member of petitioner corporation's board of directors. Verily, the mere promotion of respondent Lazaro to the position of Vice President and concurrent Head of the Branch Banking Group, Region VI, which he previously held in May 1993, did not place his subsequent suit contesting the legality of his dismissal outside of the jurisdiction of the NLRC.

Petitioners' invocation of De Rossi v. National Labor Relations Commission ² 314 SCRA 245 (1999).is inappropriate because in that case, the corporate officer was dismissed on the ground that, among others, he was guilty of gross mismanagement of the business of the company and misappropriation of its funds.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court RESOLVED to deny the petition for lack of showing that the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE