Matling Industrial v. Coros, October 13, 2010

8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 633
The Court directs the immediate payment of the balance

to him, unless lawful grounds warrant the continued
retention of the balance in relation to other cases involving
him.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio-Morales (Chairperson), Brion, Villarama, Jr.

and Sereno, JJ., concur.
Judge Damaso Herrera meted with P11,000 fine.
Note.—Judges are enjoined to dispose of the court’s

business promptly and expeditiously and decide cases
within the period fixed by law. (Salvador vs. Limsiaco, Jr.,
551 SCRA 373 [2008])
——o0o——
G.R. No. 157802. October 13, 2010.*
MATLING INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL

CORPORATION, RICHARD K. SPENCER, CATHERINE
SPENCER, AND ALEX MANCILLA, petitioners, vs.
RICARDO R. COROS, respondent.
Labor Law; Labor Arbiters; Illegal Dismissals; As a rule, the

illegal dismissal of an officer or other employee of a private
employer is properly cognizable by the Labor Arbiter (LA).—As a
rule, the illegal dismissal of an officer or other employee of a
private employer is properly cognizable by the LA. This is
pursuant to Article 217 (a) 2 of the Labor Code, as amended.
Same; Same; Same; Where the complaint for illegal dismissal
concerns a corporate officer, however, the controversy falls under
the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
—Where the complaint for illegal dismissal concerns a corporate
offi-
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
13
VOL. 633, OCTOBER 13, 2010 13
Mating Industrial and Commercial Corporation vs. Coros
cer, however, the controversy falls under the jurisdiction of the

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), because the
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b596622f66ae6a195000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/19
controversy arises out of intra-corporate or partnership relations

between and among stockholders, members, or associates, or
between any or all of them and the corporation, partnership, or
association of which they are stockholders, members, or
associates, respectively; and between such corporation,
partnership, or association and the State insofar as the
controversy concerns their individual franchise or right to exist as
such entity; or because the controversy involves the election or
appointment of a director, trustee, officer, or manager of such
corporation, partnership, or association. Such controversy, among
others, is known as an intra-corporate dispute.
Same; Same; Same; Upon the passage of Republic Act No.
8799, otherwise known as The Securities Regulation Code, the
Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) jurisdiction over
all intra-corporate disputes was transferred to the Regional Trial
Court (RTC).—Effective on August 8, 2000, upon the passage of
Republic Act No. 8799, otherwise known as The Securities
Regulation Code, the SEC’s jurisdiction over all intra-corporate
disputes was transferred to the RTC, pursuant to Section 5.2 of
RA No. 8799, to wit: “5.2. The Commission’s jurisdiction over all
cases enumerated under Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 902-
A is hereby transferred to the Courts of general jurisdiction
or the appropriate Regional Trial Court: Provided, that the
Supreme Court in the exercise of its authority may designate the
Regional Trial Court branches that shall exercise jurisdiction over
these cases. The Commission shall retain jurisdiction over
pending cases involving intra-corporate disputes
submitted for final resolution which should be resolved
within one (1) year from the enactment of this Code. The
Commission shall retain jurisdiction over pending suspension of
payments/rehabilitation cases filed as of 30 June 2000 until
finally disposed.”
Same; Corporation Code; Corporate Officers; The creation of
an office pursuant to or under a By-Law enabling provision is not
enough to make a position a corporate office.—Conformably with
Section 25, a position must be expressly mentioned in the By-
Laws in order to be considered as a corporate office. Thus, the
creation of an office pursuant to or under a By-Law enabling
provision is not enough to make a position a corporate office.
Guerrea v. Lezama, 103
14
14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Phil. 553 (1958), the first ruling on the matter, held that the only
officers of a corporation were those given that character either by
the Corporation Code or by the By-Laws; the rest of the corporate
officers could be considered only as employees or subordinate
officials.
Same; Same; Same; The power to elect the corporate officers
was a discretionary power that the law exclusively vested in the
Board of Directors, and could not be delegated to subordinate

officers or agents.—The Board of Directors of Matling could not
validly delegate the power to create a corporate office to the
President, in light of Section 25 of the Corporation Code requiring
the Board of Directors itself to elect the corporate officers. Verily,
the power to elect the corporate officers was a discretionary power
that the law exclusively vested in the Board of Directors, and
could not be delegated to subordinate officers or agents. The office
of Vice President for Finance and Administration created by
Matling’s President pursuant to By-Law No. V was an ordinary,
not a corporate, office.
Same; Same; Same; The statement in Tabang, to the effect
that offices not expressly mentioned in the By-Laws but were
created pursuant to a By-Law enabling provision were also
considered corporate offices, was plainly obiter dictum.—The
petitioners’ reliance on Tabang, supra, is misplaced. The
statement in Tabang, to the effect that offices not expressly
mentioned in the By-Laws but were created pursuant to a By-Law
enabling provision were also considered corporate offices, was
plainly obiter dictum due to the position subject of the controversy
being mentioned in the By-Laws. Thus, the Court held therein
that the position was a corporate office, and that the
determination of the rights and liabilities arising from the ouster
from the position was an intra-corporate controversy within the
SEC’s jurisdiction.
Same; Same; Same; Elements in order to determine whether a
dispute constitutes an intra-corporate controversy or not.—True it
is that the Court pronounced in Tabang as follows: “Also, an
intra-corporate controversy is one which arises between a
stockholder and the corporation. There is no distinction,
qualification or any exemption whatsoever. The provision is broad
and covers all kinds of controversies between stockholders and
corporations.” However, the Tabang pronouncement is not
controlling because it is too sweeping and does not accord with
reason, justice, and fair play. In order to determine whether a
dispute constitutes an intra-corporate contro-
15
VOL. 633, OCTOBER 13, 2010 15
versy or not, the Court considers two elements instead, namely:

(a) the status or relationship of the parties; and (b) the nature of
the question that is the subject of their controversy.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Reyes & Reyes Law Offices for petitioners.
Antonio R. Bacalso II for respondent.
BERSAMIN, J.:
This case reprises the jurisdictional conundrum of

whether a complaint for illegal dismissal is cognizable by
the Labor Arbiter (LA) or by the Regional Trial Court
(RTC). The determination of whether the dismissed officer
was a regular employee or a corporate officer unravels the
conundrum. In the case of the regular employee, the LA
has jurisdiction; otherwise, the RTC exercises the legal
authority to adjudicate.
In this appeal via petition for review on certiorari, the
petitioners challenge the decision dated September 13,
20021 and the resolution dated April 2, 2003,2 both
promulgated in CA-G.R. SP No. 65714 entitled Matling
Industrial and Commercial Corporation, et al. v. Ricardo R.
Coros and National Labor Relations Commission, whereby
by the Court of Appeals (CA) sustained the ruling of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) to the effect
that the LA had jurisdiction because the respondent was
not a corporate officer of petitioner Matling Industrial and
Commercial Corporation (Matling).
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 53-61; penned by Associate Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili

(retired), with Associate Justice Edgardo P. Cruz (retired) and Associate
Justice Amelita G. Tolentino, concurring.
2 Id., at pp. 63-67.
16

Antecedents
After his dismissal by Matling as its Vice President for

Finance and Administration, the respondent filed on
August 10, 2000 a complaint for illegal suspension and
illegal dismissal against Matling and some of its corporate
officers (petitioners) in the NLRC, Sub-Regional
Arbitration Branch XII, Iligan City.3
The petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint,4 raising
the ground, among others, that the complaint pertained to
the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) due to the controversy being intra-corporate
inasmuch as the respondent was a member of Matling’s
Board of Directors aside from being its Vice President for
Finance and Administration prior to his termination.
The respondent opposed the petitioners’ motion to
dismiss,5 insisting that his status as a member of Matling’s
Board of Directors was doubtful, considering that he had
not been formally elected as such; that he did not own a
single share of stock in Matling, considering that he had
been made to sign in blank an undated indorsement of the
certificate of stock he had been given in 1992; that Matling
had taken back and retained the certificate of stock in its
custody; and that even assuming that he had been a

Director of Matling, he had been removed as the Vice
President for Finance and Administration, not as a
Director, a fact that the notice of his termination dated
April 10, 2000 showed.
On October 16, 2000, the LA granted the petitioners’
motion to dismiss,6 ruling that the respondent was a
corporate officer because he was occupying the position of
Vice President for Finance and Administration and at the
same time
_______________
3 Id., at pp. 69-70.

4 Id., at pp. 71-74.
5 Id., at pp. 90-95.
6 Id., at pp. 96-99.
17
VOL. 633, OCTOBER 13, 2010 17

was a Member of the Board of Directors of Matling; and

that, consequently, his removal was a corporate act of
Matling and the controversy resulting from such removal
was under the jurisdiction of the SEC, pursuant to Section
5, paragraph (c) of Presidential Decree No. 902.
Ruling of the NLRC
The respondent appealed to the NLRC,7 urging that:
I.
THE HONORABLE LABOR ARBITER COMMITTED GRAVE
ABUSE OF DISCRETION GRANTING APPELLEE’S MOTION
TO DISMISS WITHOUT GIVING THE APPELLANT AN
OPPORTUNITY TO FILE HIS OPPOSITION THERETO
THEREBY VIOLATING THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF DUE
PROCESS.
II
THE HONORABLE LABOR ARBITER COMMITTED AN
ERROR IN DISMISSING THE CASE FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION.
On March 13, 2001, the NLRC set aside the dismissal,

concluding that the respondent’s complaint for illegal
dismissal was properly cognizable by the LA, not by the
SEC, because he was not a corporate officer by virtue of his
position in Matling, albeit high ranking and managerial,
not being among the positions listed in Matling’s
Constitution and By-Laws.8 The NLRC disposed thuswise:
“WHEREFORE, the Order appealed from is SET ASIDE. A

new one is entered declaring and holding that the case at bench
does not involve any intracorporate matter. Hence, jurisdiction to
hear and act on said case is vested with the Labor Arbiter, not the
SEC, considering that the position of Vice-President for Finance
and Administration being held by complainant-appellant is not
listed as among respondent’s corporate officers.
_______________
7 Id., at pp. 100-111.

8 Id., at pp. 112-116.
18

Accordingly, let the records of this case be REMANDED to the

Arbitration Branch of origin in order that the Labor Arbiter below
could act on the case at bench, hear both parties, receive their
respective evidence and position papers fully observing the
requirements of due process, and resolve the same with
reasonable dispatch.
SO ORDERED.”
The petitioners sought reconsideration,9 reiterating that

the respondent, being a member of the Board of Directors,
was a corporate officer whose removal was not within the
LA’s jurisdiction.
The petitioners later submitted to the NLRC in support
of the motion for reconsideration the certified machine
copies of Matling’s Amended Articles of Incorporation and
By-Laws to prove that the President of Matling was
thereby granted “full power to create new offices and
appoint the officers thereto, and the minutes of special
meeting held on June 7, 1999 by Matling’s Board of
Directors to prove that the respondent was, indeed, a
Member of the Board of Directors.10
Nonetheless, on April 30, 2001, the NLRC denied the
petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.11
Ruling of the CA
The petitioners elevated the issue to the CA by petition

for certiorari, docketed as CA-G.R. No. SP 65714,
contending that the NLRC committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in reversing the
correct decision of the LA.
In its assailed decision promulgated on September 13,
2002,12 the CA dismissed the petition for certiorari,
explaining:
_______________
9 Id., at pp. 117-120.

10 Id., at pp. 121-142.
11 Id., at pp. 143-144.
12 Supra, at note 1.
19
VOL. 633, OCTOBER 13, 2010 19

“For a position to be considered as a corporate office, or, for

that matter, for one to be considered as a corporate officer, the
position must, if not listed in the by-laws, have been created by
the corporation’s board of directors, and the occupant thereof
appointed or elected by the same board of directors or
stockholders. This is the implication of the ruling in Tabang v.
National Labor Relations Commission, which reads:
“The president, vice president, secretary and treasurer
are commonly regarded as the principal or executive officers
of a corporation, and modern corporation statutes usually
designate them as the officers of the corporation. However,
other offices are sometimes created by the charter or by-
laws of a corporation, or the board of directors may be
empowered under the by-laws of a corporation to create
additional offices as may be necessary.
It has been held that an ‘office’ is created by the charter
of the corporation and the officer is elected by the directors
or stockholders. On the other hand, an ‘employee’ usually
occupies no office and generally is employed not by 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.”
This ruling was reiterated in the subsequent cases of
Ongkingco v. National Labor Relations Commission and De Rossi
v. National Labor Relations Commission.
The position of vice-president for administration and finance,
which Coros used to hold in the corporation, was not created by
the corporation’s board of directors but only by its president or
executive vice-president pursuant to the by-laws of the
corporation. Moreover, Coros’ appointment to said position was
not made through any act of the board of directors or stockholders
of the corporation. Consequently, the position to which Coros was
appointed and later on removed from, is not a corporate office
despite its nomenclature, but an ordinary office in the
corporation.
Coros’ alleged illegal dismissal therefrom is, therefore, within
the jurisdiction of the labor arbiter.
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby
DISMISSED.
20

SO ORDERED.”
The CA denied the petitioners’ motion for

reconsideration on April 2, 2003.13
Issue
Thus, the petitioners are now before the Court for a

review on certiorari, positing that the respondent was a
stockholder/member of the Matling’s Board of Directors as
well as its Vice President for Finance and Administration;
and that the CA consequently erred in holding that the LA
had jurisdiction.
The decisive issue is whether the respondent was a
corporate officer of Matling or not. The resolution of the
issue determines whether the LA or the RTC had
jurisdiction over his complaint for illegal dismissal.
Ruling
The appeal fails.
The Law on Jurisdiction in Dismissal Cases

As a rule, the illegal dismissal of an officer or other
employee of a private employer is properly cognizable by
the LA. This is pursuant to Article 217 (a) 2 of the Labor
Code, as amended, which provides as follows:
“Article 217. Jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters and the

Commission.—(a) Except as otherwise provided under this
Code, the Labor Arbiters shall have original and exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide, within thirty (30) calendar
days after the submission of the case by the parties for decision
without extension, even in the absence of stenographic notes, the
following cases
_______________
21
VOL. 633, OCTOBER 13, 2010 21

involving all workers, whether agricultural or non-agricul-

tural:
1. Unfair labor practice cases;
2. Termination disputes;
3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases
that workers may file involving wages, 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 employer-employee 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.
(c) Cases arising from the interpretation or implementation
of collective bargaining agreements and those arising from the
interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies shall
be disposed of by the Labor Arbiter by referring the same to the
grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration as may be
provided in said agreements. (As amended by Section 9, Republic
Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).”
Where the complaint for illegal dismissal concerns a

corporate officer, however, the controversy falls under the
jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC), because the controversy arises out of intra-corporate
or partnership relations between and among stockholders,
members, or associates, or between any or all of them and
the corporation, partnership, or association of which they
are stockholders, members, or associates, respectively; and
between such corporation, partnership, or association and
the State insofar as
22

the controversy concerns their individual franchise or right

to exist as such entity; or because the controversy involves
the election or appointment of a director, trustee, officer, or
manager of such corporation, partnership, or association.14
Such controversy, among others, is known as an intra-
corporate dispute.
Effective on August 8, 2000, upon the passage of
Republic Act No. 8799,15 otherwise known as The Securities
Regulation Code, the SEC’s jurisdiction over all intra-
corporate disputes was transferred to the RTC, pursuant to
Section 5.2 of RA No. 8799, to wit:
“5.2. The Commission’s jurisdiction over all cases enumerated

under Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A is hereby
transferred to the Courts of general jurisdiction or the
appropriate Regional Trial Court: Provided, that the
Supreme Court in the exercise of its authority may designate the
Regional Trial Court branches that shall exercise jurisdiction over
these cases. The Commission shall retain jurisdiction over
pending cases involving intra-corporate disputes
submitted for final resolution which should be resolved
within one (1) year from the enactment of this Code. The
Commission shall retain jurisdiction over pending suspension of
payments/rehabilitation cases filed as of 30 June 2000 until
finally disposed.”
Considering that the respondent’s complaint for illegal

dismissal was commenced on August 10, 2000, it might
come under the coverage of Section 5.2 of RA No. 8799,
supra, should it turn out that the respondent was a
corporate, not a regular, officer of Matling.
_______________
14 Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A.

15 President Estrada approved the law on July 19, 2000.
23
VOL. 633, OCTOBER 13, 2010 23

II
Was the Respondent’s Position of Vice President

for Administration and Finance a Corporate Office?
We must first resolve whether or not the respondent’s

position as Vice President for Finance and Administration
was a corporate office. If it was, his dismissal by the Board
of Directors rendered the matter an intra-corporate dispute
cognizable by the RTC pursuant to RA No. 8799.
The petitioners contend that the position of Vice
President for Finance and Administration was a corporate
office, having been created by Matling’s President pursuant
to By-Law No. V, as amended,16 to wit:
BY-LAW NO. V
Officers
“The President shall be the executive head of the corporation;

shall preside over the meetings of the stockholders and directors;
shall countersign all certificates, contracts and other instruments
of the corporation as authorized by the Board of Directors; shall
have full power to hire and discharge any or all employees of the
corporation; shall have full power to create new offices and
to appoint the officers thereto as he may deem proper and
necessary in the operations of the corporation and as the
progress of the business and welfare of the corporation
may demand; shall make reports to the directors and
stockholders and perform all such other duties and functions as
are incident to his office or are properly required of him by the
Board of Directors. In case of the absence or disability of the
President, the Executive Vice President shall have the power to
exercise his functions.”
The petitioners argue that the power to create corporate

offices and to appoint the individuals to assume the offices
was delegated by Matling’s Board of Directors to its
President through By-Law No. V, as amended; and that
any office the President created, like the position of the
respondent, was as
_______________
16 Rollo, p. 135.
24

valid and effective a creation as that made by the Board of

Directors, making the office a corporate office. In
justification, they cite Tabang v. National Labor Relations
Commission,17 which held that “other offices are sometimes
created by the charter or by-laws of a corporation, or the
board of directors may be empowered under the by-laws of
a corporation to create additional officers as may be
necessary.”
The respondent counters that Matling’s By-Laws did not
list his position as Vice President for Finance and
Administration as one of the corporate offices; that
Matling’s By-Law No. III listed only four corporate officers,
namely: President, Executive Vice President, Secretary,
and Treasurer; 18 that the
_______________
17 G.R. No. 121143, January 21, 1997, 266 SCRA 462, 467.
18 Rollo, p. 134:
BY-LAW NO. III
Directors and Officers
The directors shall be elected by the stockholders at their annual
meeting and shall hold their respective offices for a term of one year or
until their successors are duly elected and qualified unless they shall be
sooner removed as hereinafter provided; Provided, however, that the
foregoing provisions shall not apply to the first Board of Directors who are
appointed to serve until the next annual meeting of the stockholders.
Absence from two successive meetings of the Board of Directors may in
the discretion of the Board terminate the membership of the director.
Directors shall receive no compensation for their services except per diems
as may be allowed by the stockholders.
18The officers of the corporation shall be the President, Executive
Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer, each of whom may hold his
office until his successor is elected and qualified, unless sooner removed
by the Board of Directors; Provided, That for the convenience of the
corporation, the office of the Secretary and Treasurer my be held by one
and the same person. Officers shall be designated by the stockholders’
meeting at the time they elect the members of the Board of Directors. Any
vacancy occurring among the officers of the Corporation on account of
removal or resignation shall be filled by a stockholders’ meeting.
Stockholders holding one half or
25
VOL. 633, OCTOBER 13, 2010 25

corporate offices contemplated in the phrase “and such

other officers as may be provided for in the by-laws” found
in Section 25 of the Corporation Code should be clearly and
expressly stated in the By-Laws; that the fact that
Matling’s By-Law No. III dealt with Directors & Officers
while its By-Law No. V dealt with Officers proved that
there was a differentiation between the officers mentioned
in the two provisions, with those classified under By-Law
No. V being ordinary or non-corporate officers; and that the
officer, to be considered as a corporate officer, must be
elected by the Board of Directors or the stockholders, for
the President could only appoint an employee to a position
pursuant to By-Law No. V.
We agree with respondent.
Section 25 of the Corporation Code provides:
“Section 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.
_______________
more of the subscribed capital stock of the corporation may demand and compel
the resignation of any officer at any time.
26

Directors or trustees cannot attend or vote by proxy at board

meetings.”
Conformably with Section 25, a position must be

expressly mentioned in the By-Laws in order to be
considered as a corporate office. Thus, the creation of an
office pursuant to or under a By-Law enabling provision is
not enough to make a position a corporate office. Guerrea v.
Lezama,19 the first ruling on the matter, held that the only
officers of a corporation were those given that character
either by the Corporation Code or by the By-Laws; the rest

of the corporate officers could be considered only as
employees or subordinate officials. Thus, it was held in
Easycall Communications Phils., Inc. v. King:20
“An “office” is created by the charter of the corporation and the

officer is elected by the directors or stockholders. 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.
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 (now the RTC).”
This interpretation is the correct application of Section

25 of the Corporation Code, which plainly states that the
corporate officers are the President, Secretary, Treasurer
and such other officers as may be provided for in the By-
Laws. Accordingly, the corporate officers in the context of
PD No. 902-A are exclusively those who are given that
character either by the Corporation Code or by the
corporation’s By-Laws.
_______________
19 103 Phil. 553 (1958).

20 G.R. No.145901, December 15, 2005, 478 SCRA 102, 110-111.
27
VOL. 633, OCTOBER 13, 2010 27

A different interpretation can easily leave the way open

for the Board of Directors to circumvent the
constitutionally guaranteed security of tenure of the
employee by the expedient inclusion in the By-Laws of an
enabling clause on the creation of just any corporate officer
position.
It is relevant to state in this connection that the SEC,
the primary agency administering the Corporation Code,
adopted a similar interpretation of Section 25 of the
Corporation Code in its Opinion dated November 25,
1993,21 to wit:
“Thus, pursuant to the above provision (Section 25 of the

Corporation Code), whoever are the corporate officers
enumerated in the by-laws are the exclusive Officers of the
corporation and the Board has no power to create other
Offices without amending first the corporate By-laws.
However, the Board may create appointive positions other
than the positions of corporate Officers, but the persons

occupying such positions are not considered as corporate
officers within the meaning of Section 25 of the
Corporation Code and are not empowered to exercise the
functions of the corporate Officers, except those functions
lawfully delegated to them. Their functions and duties are
to be determined by the Board of Directors/Trustees.”
Moreover, the Board of Directors of Matling could not

validly delegate the power to create a corporate office to the
President, in light of Section 25 of the Corporation Code
requiring the Board of Directors itself to elect the corporate
officers. Verily, the power to elect the corporate officers was
a discretionary power that the law exclusively vested in the
Board of Directors, and could not be delegated to
subordinate officers or agents.22 The office of Vice President
for Finance
_______________
21 SEC Folio 1960-1976, at p. 498.

22 2 Fletcher 377, cited in Agbayani, Commentaries and Jurisprudence
on the Commercial Laws of the Philippines, Vol. 3, 1988 Edition, page 226.
28

and Administration created by Matling’s President

pursuant to By-Law No. V was an ordinary, not a
corporate, office.
To emphasize, the power to create new offices and the
power to appoint the officers to occupy them vested by By-
Law No. V merely allowed Matling’s President to create
non-corporate offices to be occupied by ordinary employees
of Matling. Such powers were incidental to the President’s
duties as the executive head of Matling to assist him in the
daily operations of the business.
The petitioners’ reliance on Tabang, supra, is misplaced.
The statement in Tabang, to the effect that offices not
expressly mentioned in the By-Laws but were created
pursuant to a By-Law enabling provision were also
considered corporate offices, was plainly obiter dictum due
to the position subject of the controversy being mentioned
in the By-Laws. Thus, the Court held therein that the
position was a corporate office, and that the determination
of the rights and liabilities arising from the ouster from the
position was an intra-corporate controversy within the
SEC’s jurisdiction.
In Nacpil v. Intercontinental Broadcasting
Corporation,23 which may be the more appropriate ruling,
the position subject of the controversy was not expressly
mentioned in the By-Laws, but was created pursuant to a
By-Law enabling provision authorizing the Board of
Directors to create other offices that the Board of Directors

might see fit to create. The Court held there that the
position was a corporate office, relying on the obiter dictum
in Tabang.
Considering that the observations earlier made herein
show that the soundness of their dicta is not unassailable,
Tabang and Nacpil should no longer be controlling.
_______________
23 G.R. No. 144767, March 21, 2002, 379 SCRA 653.
29
VOL. 633, OCTOBER 13, 2010 29

III
Did Respondent’s Status as Director and

Stockholder Automatically Convert his Dismissal
into an Intra-Corporate Dispute?
Yet, the petitioners insist that because the respondent

was a Director/stockholder of Matling, and relying on
Paguio v. National Labor Relations Commission24 and
Ongkingko v. National Labor Relations Commission,25 the
NLRC had no jurisdiction over his complaint, considering
that any case for illegal dismissal brought by a
stockholder/officer against the corporation was an intra-
corporate matter that must fall under the jurisdiction of
the SEC conformably with the context of PD No. 902-A.
The petitioners’ insistence is bereft of basis.
To begin with, the reliance on Paguio and Ongkingko is
misplaced. In both rulings, the complainants were
undeniably corporate officers due to their positions being
expressly mentioned in the By-Laws, aside from the fact
that both of them had been duly elected by the respective
Boards of Directors. But the herein respondent’s position of
Vice President for Finance and Administration was not
expressly mentioned in the By-Laws; neither was the
position of Vice President for Finance and Administration
created by Matling’s Board of Directors. Lastly, the
President, not the Board of Directors, appointed him.
True it is that the Court pronounced in Tabang as
follows:
“Also, an intra-corporate controversy is one which arises

between a stockholder and the corporation. There is no
distinction, qualification or any exemption whatsoever. The
provision is broad and covers all kinds of controversies between
stockholders and corporations.”26
_______________
24 G.R. No. 116662, February 1, 1996, 253 SCRA 166.

25 G.R. No. 119877, March 31, 1997, 270 SCRA 613.
30

However, the Tabang pronouncement is not controlling

because it is too sweeping and does not accord with reason,
justice, and fair play. In order to determine whether a
dispute constitutes an intra-corporate controversy or not,
the Court considers two elements instead, namely: (a) the
status or relationship of the parties; and (b) the nature of
the question that is the subject of their controversy. This
was our thrust in Viray v. Court of Appeals:27
“The establishment of any of the relationships mentioned

above will not necessarily always confer jurisdiction over the
dispute on the SEC to the exclusion of regular courts. The
statement made in one case that the rule admits of no exceptions
or distinctions is not that absolute. The better policy in
determining which body has jurisdiction over a case would be to
consider not only the status or relationship of the parties but also
the nature of the question that is the subject of their controversy.
Not every conflict between a corporation and its stockholders
involves corporate matters that only the SEC can resolve in the
exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. If, for
example, a person leases an apartment owned by a corporation of
which he is a stockholder, there should be no question that a
complaint for his ejectment for non-payment of rentals would still
come under the jurisdiction of the regular courts and not of the
SEC. By the same token, if one person injures another in a
vehicular accident, the complaint for damages filed by the victim
will not come under the jurisdiction of the SEC simply because of
the happenstance that both parties are stockholders of the same
corporation. A contrary interpretation would dissipate the powers
of the regular courts and distort the meaning and intent of PD No.
902-A.”
In another case, Mainland Construction Co., Inc. v.

Movilla,28 the Court reiterated these determinants
thuswise:
_______________
27 G.R. No. 92481, November 9, 1990, 191 SCRA 308, 322-323.

28 G.R. No. 118088, November 23, 1995, 250 SCRA 290, 294-295.
31
VOL. 633, OCTOBER 13, 2010 31

“In order that the SEC (now the regular courts) 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.
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. 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.”29
The criteria for distinguishing between corporate officers

who may be ousted from office at will, on one hand, and
ordinary corporate employees who may only be terminated
for just cause, on the other hand, do not depend on the
nature of the services performed, but on the manner of
creation of the office. In the respondent’s case, he was
supposedly at once an employee, a stockholder, and a
Director of Matling. The circumstances surrounding his
appointment to office must be fully considered to determine
whether the dismissal consti-
_______________
29 See also Saura v. Saura, Jr., G.R. No. 136159, September 1, 1999,
313 SCRA 465; Lozano v. De los Santos, G.R. No. 125221, June 19, 1997,
274 SCRA 452.
32

tuted an intra-corporate controversy or a labor termination

dispute. We must also consider whether his status as
Director and stockholder had any relation at all to his
appointment and subsequent dismissal as Vice President
for Finance and Administration.
Obviously enough, the respondent was not appointed as
Vice President for Finance and Administration because of
his being a stockholder or Director of Matling. He had
started working for Matling on September 8, 1966, and had
been employed continuously for 33 years until his
termination on April 17, 2000, first as a bookkeeper, and
his climb in 1987 to his last position as Vice President for
Finance and Administration had been gradual but steady,

as the following sequence indicates:
1966—Bookkeeper
1968—Senior Accountant
1969—Chief Accountant
1972—Office Supervisor
1973—Assistant Treasurer
1978—Special Assistant for Finance
1980—Assistant Comptroller
1983—Finance and Administrative Manager
1985—Asst. Vice President for Finance and Administration
1987 to April 17, 2000—Vice President for Finance and
Administration
Even though he might have become a stockholder of

Matling in 1992, his promotion to the position of Vice
President for Finance and Administration in 1987 was by
virtue of the length of quality service he had rendered as
an employee of Matling. His subsequent acquisition of the
status of Director/stockholder had no relation to his
promotion. Besides, his status of Director/stockholder was
unaffected by his dismissal from employment as Vice
President for Finance and Administration.
33
VOL. 633, OCTOBER 13, 2010 33

In Prudential Bank and Trust Company v. Reyes,30 a

case involving a lady bank manager who had risen from the
ranks but was dismissed, the Court held that her complaint
for illegal dismissal was correctly brought to the NLRC,
because she was deemed a regular employee of the bank.
The Court observed thus:
“It appears that private respondent was appointed Accounting

Clerk by the Bank on July 14, 1963. From that position she rose
to become supervisor. Then in 1982, she was appointed Assistant
Vice-President which she occupied until her illegal dismissal on
July 19, 1991. The bank’s contention that she merely holds
an elective position and that in effect she is not a regular
employee is belied by the nature of her work and her
length of service with the Bank. As earlier stated, she rose
from the ranks and has been employed with the Bank since 1963
until the termination of her employment in 1991. As Assistant
Vice President of the Foreign Department of the Bank, she is
tasked, among others, to collect checks drawn against overseas
banks payable in foreign currency and to ensure the collection of
foreign bills or checks purchased, including the signing of
transmittal letters covering the same. It has been stated that “the
primary standard of determining regular employment is the
reasonable connection between the particular activity performed
by the employee in relation to the usual trade or business of the
employer. Additionally, “an employee is regular because of the
nature of work and the length of service, not because of the mode
or even the reason for hiring them.” As Assistant Vice-President
of the Foreign Department of the Bank she performs tasks
integral to the operations of the bank and her length of service
with the bank totaling 28 years speaks volumes of her status as a
regular employee of the bank. In fine, as a regular employee, she
is entitled to security of tenure; that is, her services may be
terminated only for a just or authorized cause. This being in truth
a case of illegal dismissal, it is no wonder then that the Bank
endeavored to the very end to establish loss of trust and
confidence and serious misconduct on the part of private
respondent but, as will be discussed later, to no avail.”
_______________
30 G.R. No. 141093, February 20, 2001, 352 SCRA 316, 327.
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Matling Industrial v. Coros, October 13, 2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Matling Industrial v. Coros, October 13, 2010

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Matling Industrial v. Coros, October 13, 2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 633

The Court directs the immediate payment of the balance

Carpio-Morales (Chairperson), Brion, Villarama, Jr.

Judge Damaso Herrera meted with P11,000 fine.

Note.—Judges are enjoined to dispose of the court’s

G.R. No. 157802. October 13, 2010.*

MATLING INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL

Labor Law; Labor Arbiters; Illegal Dismissals; As a rule, the

VOL. 633, OCTOBER 13, 2010 13

Mating Industrial and Commercial Corporation vs. Coros

cer, however, the controversy falls under the jurisdiction of the

controversy arises out of intra-corporate or partnership relations

14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Mating Industrial and Commercial Corporation vs. Coros

Board of Directors, and could not be delegated to subordinate

VOL. 633, OCTOBER 13, 2010 15

Mating Industrial and Commercial Corporation vs. Coros

versy or not, the Court considers two elements instead, namely:

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

This case reprises the jurisdictional conundrum of

1 Rollo, pp. 53-61; penned by Associate Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili

16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

After his dismissal by Matling as its Vice President for

custody; and that even assuming that he had been a

3 Id., at pp. 69-70.

VOL. 633, OCTOBER 13, 2010 17

was a Member of the Board of Directors of Matling; and

Ruling of the NLRC

The respondent appealed to the NLRC,7 urging that:

On March 13, 2001, the NLRC set aside the dismissal,

“WHEREFORE, the Order appealed from is SET ASIDE. A

7 Id., at pp. 100-111.

18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Accordingly, let the records of this case be REMANDED to the

The petitioners sought reconsideration,9 reiterating that

The petitioners elevated the issue to the CA by petition

9 Id., at pp. 117-120.

VOL. 633, OCTOBER 13, 2010 19

“For a position to be considered as a corporate office, or, for

20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The CA denied the petitioners’ motion for

Thus, the petitioners are now before the Court for a

The appeal fails.

The Law on Jurisdiction in Dismissal Cases

“Article 217. Jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters and the

VOL. 633, OCTOBER 13, 2010 21

involving all workers, whether agricultural or non-agri­cul-­

persons in domestic or household service, involving an amount

Where the complaint for illegal dismissal concerns a

22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the controversy concerns their individual franchise or right

“5.2. The Commission’s jurisdiction over all cases enumerated

Considering that the respondent’s complaint for illegal

14 Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A.

VOL. 633, OCTOBER 13, 2010 23

Was the Respondent’s Position of Vice President

We must first resolve whether or not the respondent’s

“The President shall be the executive head of the corporation;

The petitioners argue that the power to create corporate

involving all workers, whether agricultural or non-agricul-