Cacho v. Balagtas, February 7, 2018
Cacho v. Balagtas, February 7, 2018
Cacho v. Balagtas, February 7, 2018
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b596b6e464840978e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/25
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 855
12
13
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b596b6e464840978e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/25
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 855
14
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b596b6e464840978e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/25
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 855
15
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 85-99; penned by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam (now a
member of this Court), with Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales Sison
and Leoncia R. Dimagiba, concurring.
2 Id., at pp. 102-105.
3 Id., at pp. 264-273.
4 Id., at pp. 217-218.
16
_______________
5 Id., at pp. 86-88.
17
Subsequently, petitioners appealed the case to the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). In their
Notice of Appeal,7 they prayed that Balagtas’s Complaint
be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. While they maintained
that Balagtas was never dismissed, they also alleged that
she was a corporate officer, incorporator, and member of
the North Star’s Board of Directors (The Board). Thus, the
NLRC cannot take cognizance of her illegal dismissal case,
the same being an intra-corporate controversy, which
properly falls within the original and exclusive jurisdiction
of the ordinary courts.
_______________
6 Id., at p. 273.
7 Through a Notice of Appeal dated May 27, 2005. Id., at pp. 275-287.
18
The NLRC’s findings are as follows: First, through a
Board resolution passed on March 31, 2003, Balagtas was
elected as North Star’s Executive Vice President and
Chief Executive Officer, as evidenced by a Secretary’s
Certificate dated April 22, 2003. Second, in her Counter
Affidavit executed sometime in 2004 in relation to the
criminal charges against her, respondent Balagtas had in
fact admitted occupying these positions, apart from being
one of North Star’s incorporators. And, third, the position
of “Vice President” is a corporate office provided in North
Star’s bylaws.10
Based on these findings, the NLRC ruled that
respondent Balagtas was a corporate officer of North
Star at the time of her dismissal and not a mere
employee. A corporate officer’s dismissal is always an
intra-corporate controversy,11 a subject matter falling
within the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) jurisdiction.12
Thus, the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC do not have
jurisdiction over Balagtas’s Complaint.
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b596b6e464840978e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 7/25
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 855
_______________
8 Id., at pp. 294-315.
9 Id., at p. 314.
10 Id., at pp. 307-308.
11 Tabang v. National Labor Relations Commission, 334 Phil. 424,
430; 266 SCRA 462, 465 (1997).
12 Citing Republic Act No. 8799; Rollo, p. 307.
19
In ruling that the present case does not involve an intra-
corporate controversy, the Court of Appeals applied a two-
tier test, viz.: (a) the relationship test, and (b) the
nature of controversy test.
Applying the relationship test, the Court of Appeals
explained that no intra-corporate relationship existed
between respondent Balagtas and North Star. While
respondent Balagtas was North Star’s Chief Executive
Officer and Executive Vice President, petitioners North Star
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b596b6e464840978e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 8/25
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 855
_______________
20
_______________
15 Id., at pp. 93-94.
16 647 Phil. 324; 633 SCRA 12 (2010).
17 Rollo, p. 95.
18 Id., at pp. 95-96.
19 In a Resolution dated August 6, 2012. Respondent Balagtas filed a
Motion for Partial Reconsideration dated November 28, 2011 to seek
clarification on the Decision’s dispositive portion, more specifically the
payment of her monetary award. On the other hand, petitioners Cacho
and North Star filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated November 29,
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b596b6e464840978e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 9/25
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 855
21
The Issues
Petitioners North Star and Cacho come before this Court
raising the following issues:
A.
WHETHER RESPONDENT BALAGTAS IS A
CORPORATE OFFICER AS DEFINED BY THE
CORPORATION CODE, CASE LAW, AND NORTH STAR’S
BYLAWS.
B.
WHETHER THE APPELLATE COURT’S DECISION
REVERSING THE NLRC’S FINDING THAT BALAGTAS
WAS A CORPORATE OFFICER FOR WHICH HER
ACTION FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL WAS
INAPPROPRIATE FOR IT TO RESOLVE, WAS CORRECT
ESPECIALLY BECAUSE NO DISCUSSION OF THAT
CONCLUSION WAS MADE BY THE APPELLATE COURT
IN ITS DECISION.
C.
WHETHER THE AWARD BY THE APPELLATE COURT
OF SEPARATION PAY, BACKWAGES, DAMAGES, AND
LAWYER’S FEES TO BALAGTAS WAS APPROPRIATE.20
Petitioners Cacho and North Star insist that the present
case’s subject matter is an intra-corporate controversy.
They maintain that respondent Balagtas, as petitioner
North Star’s Executive Vice President and Chief Executive
Officer, was its corporate officer. Particularly, they argue
that: first, under petitioner North Star’s bylaws, vice
presidents are listed as corporate officers. Thus, the NLRC
erred when it differentiated between: (a) “vice president” as
a corporate office provided in petitioner North Star’s
bylaws, and (b) “Executive
_______________
20 Rollo, p. 49.
22
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b596b6e464840978e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 10/25
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 855
_______________
23
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b596b6e464840978e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 11/25
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 855
_______________
24 Citing Mainland Construction Co., Inc. v. Movilla, 320 Phil. 353;
250 SCRA 290 (1995).
25 Rollo, pp. 627-642, citing Prudential Bank and Trust Company v.
Reyes, 404 Phil. 961; 352 SCRA 316 (2001).
24
Respondent Balagtas’s
dismissal is an intra-
corporate controversy
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b596b6e464840978e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 12/25
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 855
_______________
26 583 Phil. 591; 561 SCRA 593 (2008).
27 469 Phil. 739; 425 SCRA 691 (2004).
28 655 Phil. 68; 640 SCRA 67 (2011).
29 Reyes v. Regional Trial Court of Makati, Br. 142, supra at p. 607; p.
610, citing Union Glass & Container Corporation v. Securities and
Exchange Commission, 211 Phil. 222, 230-231; 126 SCRA 31, 38 (1983).
25
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b596b6e464840978e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 13/25
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 855
_______________
30 514 Phil. 296, 302-303; 478 SCRA 102, 110 (2005), citing Tabang v.
National Labor Relations Commission, supra note 11 at p. 429; p. 467;
Real v. Sangu Philippines, Inc., supra note 28 at pp. 85-86; p. 86.
31 Easycall Communications Phils., Inc. v. King, id., at p. 302; p. 109.
32 SECTION 25. Corporate Officers, Quorum.—Immediately after
their election, the directors of a corporation must formally
26
ARTICLE IV
OFFICERS
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b596b6e464840978e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 14/25
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 855
_______________
27
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b596b6e464840978e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 15/25
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 855
_______________
35 The Corporation Code provides, “SECTION 36. Corporate Powers
and Capacity.—Every corporation incorporated under this Code has the
power and capacity: x x x 5. To adopt bylaws, not contrary to law, morals,
or public policy, and to amend or repeal the same in accordance with this
Code[.]”
36 Gokongwei, Jr. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 178 Phil.
266, 296; 89 SCRA 336, 365 (1979), citing Mckee & Company v. First
National Bank of San Diego, 265 F. Supp. 1 (1967).
28
dent
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b596b6e464840978e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 16/25
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 855
While a corporate office is created by an express
provision either in the Corporation Code or the Bylaws,
what makes one a corporate officer is his election or
appointment thereto by the board of directors. Thus,
there must be docu-
_______________
29
_______________
38 See Real v. Sangu Philippines, Inc., supra note 28 at p. 87; pp. 85-
86.
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b596b6e464840978e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 17/25
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 855
39 Rollo, p. 162.
30
_______________
31
_______________
41 See Cosare v. Broadcom Asia, Inc., 726 Phil. 316; 715 SCRA 534
(2014).
32
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b596b6e464840978e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 19/25
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 855
_______________
33
_______________
34
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b596b6e464840978e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 21/25
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 855
_______________
50 In Real v. Sangu Philippines, Inc. (supra note 28), the Court ruled,
“As earlier stated, respondents terminated the services of petitioner for
the following reasons: (1) his continuous absences at his post at Ogino
Philippines, Inc.; (2) respondents’ loss of trust and confidence on
petitioner; and, (3) to cut down operational expenses to reduce further
losses being experienced by the corporation. Hence, petitioner filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal and sought reinstatement, backwages,
moral damages and attorney’s fees. From these, it is not difficult to see
that the reasons given by respondents for dismissing petitioner have
something to do with his being a Manager of respondent corporation and
nothing with his being a director or stockholder.”
51 Rollo, pp. 245-247.
52 Id., at pp. 256-257.
35
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b596b6e464840978e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 22/25
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 855
_______________
36
tioning jurisdiction
Respondent Balagtas insists that petitioners belatedly
raised the issue of the Labor Arbiter’s lack of jurisdiction
before the NLRC. Relying on Tijam v. Sibonghanoy,56 she
avers that petitioners, after actively participating in the
proceedings before the Labor Arbiter and obtaining an
unfavorable judgment, are barred by laches from attacking
the latter’s jurisdiction.
We disagree with respondent Balagtas.
The Court has already held that the ruling in Tijam v.
Sibonghanoy remains only as an exception to the general
rule. Estoppel by laches will only bar a litigant from raising
the issue of lack of jurisdiction in exceptional cases similar
to the factual milieu of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy. To recall, the
Court in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy ruled that the plea of lack
of jurisdiction may no longer be raised for being barred by
laches because it was raised for the first time in a motion to
dismiss filed almost 15 years after the questioned
ruling had been rendered.57
These exceptional circumstances are not present in this
case. Thus, the general rule must apply: that the issue of
jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b596b6e464840978e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 23/25
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 855
_______________
37
All told, the issue in the present case is an intra-
corporate controversy, a matter outside the Labor Arbiter’s
jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The
Decision dated November 9, 2011 and Resolution dated
August 6, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. S.P.
No. 111637 are SET ASIDE. NLRC-NCR Case No. 04-
04736-04 is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, without
prejudice to the filing of an appropriate case before the
proper tribunal.
SO ORDERED.
_______________
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b596b6e464840978e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 24/25
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 855
38
——o0o——
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b596b6e464840978e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 25/25