Espino v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Leslie W. Espino was the Executive Vice President-Chief Operating Officer of Philippine Airlines (PAL). He was administratively charged, along with other senior officers, for alleged involvement in four cases ("Goldair," "Robelle," "Kasbah/La Primavera," and "Middle East") that purportedly prejudiced PAL and the Philippine Government. These charges included gross incompetence, mismanagement, negligence, and dereliction of duty. Pending investigation by presidential panels, petitioner and others were suspended. Subsequently, the PAL Board of Directors, based on the panels' findings, issued resolutions considering petitioner resigned from the service effective immediately due to loss of confidence and acts inimical to the company's interests. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC. PAL questioned the NLRC's jurisdiction, arguing that the case involved the removal of a corporate officer and should fall under the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), or alternatively, the Office of the President, given the presidential panels' involvement. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner, ordering reinstatement with backwages and damages. PAL appealed to the NLRC, reiterating its jurisdictional challenge. The NLRC, however, dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and nullified the writ of execution issued by the Labor Arbiter. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, contending that the NLRC has jurisdiction over his illegal dismissal case as it involves a regular employee and claims for backwages and damages, and that PAL is estopped from questioning the NLRC's jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) has jurisdiction over a complaint for illegal dismissal filed by a corporate Executive Vice President-Chief Operating Officer. Whether PAL is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the NLRC.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission dated July 31, 1992, dismissing the complaint for illegal dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the NLRC over corporate officers: The Court reiterated the established rule that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the removal from employment of corporate officers. This is based on Presidential Decree No. 902-A, which grants the SEC jurisdiction over controversies arising out of intracorporate relations, including those concerning the election or appointment of directors, trustees, officers, or managers. The position of Executive Vice President-Chief Operating Officer is an elective corporate office with a fixed term. The petitioner's non-election or consideration as resigned from this position constitutes an intra-corporate controversy, not a simple labor dispute. The Court cited Philippine School of Business Administration v. Leano and other cases to support this principle. The nature of the dispute, even with claims for backwages and damages, remains an intra-corporate matter because these claims are perquisites of the elective position and intimately linked to the petitioner's relationship with the corporation. The Court emphasized that the SEC's jurisdiction is aimed at supervising and controlling corporations to encourage and protect investments, and adjudicating matters intrinsically connected with the regulation and internal affairs of corporations. On the issue of estoppel: The Court found the petitioner's reliance on the principle of estoppel to be misplaced. PAL had indeed questioned the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter at the initial stages of the case, albeit on the ground that the appeal should have been to the Office of the President. The Court reiterated the well-settled principle that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and can be raised at any time, even on appeal. Estoppel cannot be invoked to confer jurisdiction upon a tribunal that lacks it. Therefore, the NLRC's decision to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction was proper, and the petition for certiorari was dismissed.
Main Doctrine
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the removal from employment of corporate officers, as such cases are considered intra-corporate controversies falling under PD 902-A, and not simple labor disputes cognizable by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).