Salenga v. Clark Development Corp.
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Antonio P. Salenga, employed by Clark Development Corporation (CDC) as Head Executive Assistant, was informed on September 22, 1998, that his position was declared redundant and his employment would be terminated in thirty days. Salenga filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, claiming he was a regular employee and not a corporate officer, and that he was denied due process. CDC argued that the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) lacked jurisdiction as the matter was an intra-corporate dispute. 2. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of Salenga, finding the NLRC had jurisdiction, the dismissal illegal due to lack of valid cause and due process, and awarding back wages, damages, and reinstatement. Despite instructions from CDC's CEO not to appeal, separate appeals were filed by the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) and former CEO Rufo Colayco. The NLRC initially upheld the LA's decision on the illegality of dismissal but removed damages, then later, through a motion for reconsideration, reinstated the LA's decision. This was followed by further motions and a conflicting resolution from another LA. The Court of Appeals (CA) eventually dismissed Salenga's complaint, ruling he was a corporate officer and the dispute was intra-corporate. Salenga then filed a petition with the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: This case reaches the Supreme Court via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, assailing the CA's decision. Salenga argues the CA acted without jurisdiction by re-litigating factual issues and entertaining the appeal despite the lack of a board resolution authorizing its filing. He also contends the CA erred in not dismissing the petitions due to lack of proper verification, certification against forum-shopping, and failure to serve the Solicitor General. The core of Salenga's argument is that the initial appeals to the NLRC were invalid due to the absence of proper authorization, rendering the LA's decision final and executory, and that subsequent proceedings, including the CA's decision, were therefore void.
Issue(s)
Whether the NLRC and the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in entertaining respondent CDC's purported appeal of the Labor Arbiter's Decision. Whether the CA erred in ruling that petitioner Salenga was a corporate officer and that his dismissal constituted an intra-corporate dispute cognizable by the SEC. Whether petitioner Salenga is entitled to retirement benefits and how they should be computed.
Ruling
The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. It reinstated the Labor Arbiter's Decision regarding CDC's liability for illegal dismissal, finding that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in entertaining CDC's appeal due to the lack of a board resolution authorizing its filing. The Court remanded the case for the computation of Salenga's retirement benefits in accordance with the Social Security Act of 1997, deducting amounts already paid, and applying legal interest.
Ratio Decidendi
On the NLRC and CA's jurisdiction over the appeal: The Court held that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the appeal filed by Timbol-Roman and Atty. Mallari on behalf of CDC, as they lacked the requisite board resolution authorizing them to file the appeal. A corporation can only act through its board of directors or authorized representatives, and the absence of such authorization renders the appeal unperfected, depriving the NLRC of jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the OGCC, as the statutory counsel for government-owned or -controlled corporations (GOCCs), cannot bypass the requirement of board authorization for filing appeals, especially when the appeal was filed against the instructions of the then-President/CEO. The CA, in turn, also committed grave abuse of discretion by entertaining CDC's petition when the NLRC had already lost jurisdiction over the case due to the unperfected appeal. The Court reiterated that the perfection of an appeal within the prescribed period is jurisdictional, and its lapse deprives the courts of jurisdiction to alter a final judgment. On Salenga's status and the nature of the dispute: The Court found that the CA erred in ruling that Salenga was a corporate officer. The Labor Arbiter's finding that Salenga held a Head Executive Assistant position, categorized as Job Level 12 and not subject to board appointment, was reinstated. Consequently, the dispute was correctly considered a labor dispute cognizable by the NLRC, not an intra-corporate dispute for the SEC. On the computation of retirement benefits: The Court clarified that CDC, being a GOCC incorporated under the Corporation Code and not having an original charter, is not covered by Civil Service Law. Therefore, Salenga's retirement benefits should be computed based solely on his service with CDC and its retirement plan, not including his prior government service. The Court remanded the case to the labor arbiter for the proper computation of these benefits under the Social Security Act of 1997 (Republic Act No. 8282), with deductions for amounts already paid and applicable legal interest.
Main Doctrine
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) committed grave abuse of discretion in entertaining an appeal filed without the requisite board resolution authorizing the filing thereof, as such appeal was not perfected and the NLRC lost jurisdiction over the case. Furthermore, government-owned or -controlled corporations without original charters are not covered by Civil Service Law, and their employees' retirement benefits are computed based on their service with the corporation and its own retirement plan.