Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Dy Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Mara Corteza San Pedro
    - The case involved the termination of Carlito Vailoces as bank manager of the Rural Bank of Ayungon after he was not re-elected to the board of directors in a stockholders meeting. - Vailoces filed a complaint with the Department of Labor claiming illegal dismissal. The labor arbiter found in his favor and ordered his reinstatement. - On appeal, the NLRC dismissed the case for being filed late. Petitioners argued the SEC, not the NLRC, had proper jurisdiction. - The Supreme Court ruled that disputes involving the election or termination of officers in a corporation fall under the SEC's jurisdiction, not the NLRC's. It

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Dy Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Mara Corteza San Pedro
    1K views2 pages
    - The case involved the termination of Carlito Vailoces as bank manager of the Rural Bank of Ayungon after he was not re-elected to the board of directors in a stockholders meeting. - Vailoces filed a complaint with the Department of Labor claiming illegal dismissal. The labor arbiter found in his favor and ordered his reinstatement. - On appeal, the NLRC dismissed the case for being filed late. Petitioners argued the SEC, not the NLRC, had proper jurisdiction. - The Supreme Court ruled that disputes involving the election or termination of officers in a corporation fall under the SEC's jurisdiction, not the NLRC's. It

    Original Description:

    law

    Original Title

    Dy vs NLRC

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    - The case involved the termination of Carlito Vailoces as bank manager of the Rural Bank of Ayungon after he was not re-elected to the board of directors in a stockholders meeting. - Vailoces filed a complaint with the Department of Labor claiming illegal dismissal. The labor arbiter found in his favor and ordered his reinstatement. - On appeal, the NLRC dismissed the case for being filed late. Petitioners argued the SEC, not the NLRC, had proper jurisdiction. - The Supreme Court ruled that disputes involving the election or termination of officers in a corporation fall under the SEC's jurisdiction, not the NLRC's. It

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    Dy Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Mara Corteza San Pedro
    - The case involved the termination of Carlito Vailoces as bank manager of the Rural Bank of Ayungon after he was not re-elected to the board of directors in a stockholders meeting. - Vailoces filed a complaint with the Department of Labor claiming illegal dismissal. The labor arbiter found in his favor and ordered his reinstatement. - On appeal, the NLRC dismissed the case for being filed late. Petitioners argued the SEC, not the NLRC, had proper jurisdiction. - The Supreme Court ruled that disputes involving the election or termination of officers in a corporation fall under the SEC's jurisdiction, not the NLRC's. It

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Dy vs. National Labor Relations Commission No. L-68544. October 27, 1986 Narvasa, J.

    Doctrine: It is the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and not the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) that has jurisdiction over a dispute involving the termination of a bank manager as a result of his non-reelection, thereto, as prescribed in the Banks by-laws. It is no hindrance to SEC jurisdiction that a person raises in his complaint the issues that he was illegally dismissed and asks for remuneration where complainant is not a mere employee but a stockholder and officer of the corporation. FACTS: Petitioners Lorenzo C. Dy, Zosimo Dy, Sr., William Ibero, Ricardo Garcia and Rural Bank of Ayungon, Inc. assail in this Court the resolution of public respondent NLRC dismissing their appeal from the decision of the Executive Labor Arbiter in Cebu City which found private respondent Carlito H. Vailoces to have been illegally dismissed by them. Private respondent Vailoces was the manager of the Rural Bank of Ayungon (Negros Oriental), a banking institution duly organized under Philippine laws. He was also a director and stockholder of the bank. On June 4, 1983, a special stockholders meeting was called for the purpose of electing the members of the banks Board of Directors. Immediately after the election, the new Board proceeded to elect the banks executive officers. Pursuant to Article 4 of the banks by-laws, providing for the election by the entire membership of the Board of the executive officers of the bank, i.e., the president, vice president, secretary, cashier and bank manager, in that board meeting of June 4, 1983, petitioners Lorenzo Dy, William Ibero and Ricardo Garcia were elected president, vice president, and corporate secretary, respectively. Private respondent Vailoces was not re-elected as bank manager. Because of this, the Board passed a Resolution relieving him as bank manager. Subsequently, Vailoces filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and damages with the Ministry of Labor and Employment against herein petitioners, asserting that an illegal stockholders meeting was held. In their answer, petitioners denied the charge of illegal dismissal. The Executive Labor Arbiter found that Vailoces was illegally dismissed due to the resentment of petitioners against Vailoces and consequently ordered the individual petitioners Lorenzo Dy and Zosimo Dy, Sr. to pay Vailoces jointly and severally the sum of P111,480.60 and reinstate the latter to his position as bank manager, with additional backwages. Petitioner Lorenzo Dy appealed to the NLRC, assigning error to the decision of the Labor Arbiter, one being that the matter of Vailoces relief was within the adjudicatory powers of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The NLRC bypassed the issues and dismissed the appeal for having been filed late. Hence, this petition. ISSUE: Whether or not the SEC, and not respondent NLRC, has jurisdiction over the dispute. RULING: YES. While the comment of Vailoces traverses the averments of the petition that of the Solicitor General on behalf of public respondents perceives the matter as an intra-corporate controversy of the class described in Section 5, par. (c) of Presidential Decree No. 902-A, namely:

    Original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and d ecide cases involving: Xxxx Xxxx (c) Controversies in the election or appointments of directors, trustees, officers or managers of such corporations, partnerships or associations.

    explicitly declared to be within the original jurisdiction of the SEC, and recommends that the questioned resolution of the NLRC as well as the decision of the Labor Arbiter be set aside as null and void. The judgment of the Labor Arbiter and the resolution of the NLRC are void for lack of jurisdiction. It is of no moment that Vailoces, in his amended complaint, seeks other relief which would seemingly fall under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter, because underpayment of salary and nonpayment of living allowance show that they are actually part of the perquisites of his elective position, hence, intimately linked with his relations with the corporation. The question of remuneration involving a person who is not a mere employee but a stockholder and officer of a corporation 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 Corporate Code. Wherefore, the questioned decision of the Labor Arbiter and the Resolution of the NLRC dismissing petitioners appeal are hereby set aside for being rendered without jurisdiction.

    You might also like