Auxilia v. Mesina
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Nelyn Carpio Mesina (Mesina) was hired by Auxilia, Inc. (petitioner) as Vice President, Head of Legal, and Head of Liaison Officers for POEA Matters. In April 2018, Mesina was directed to stop performing her duties and vacate her office, with her last salary withheld. Despite this, she continued to report for work until May 25, 2018, when she was informed she would be physically escorted from the premises. Mesina then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of wages and allowances. Petitioner denied illegal dismissal, asserting Mesina was a corporate officer, not an employee, and that her removal stemmed from her unauthorized "no objection" letters to the POEA, which allegedly caused operational disruptions. Petitioner further claimed Mesina was removed as a director and Vice President during a general assembly meeting where she failed to secure a directorship. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed Mesina's complaint for lack of jurisdiction, deeming it an intra-corporate dispute. Mesina appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which reversed the LA's decision, finding Mesina to be an illegally dismissed employee because petitioner failed to present its by-laws to substantiate its claim that she was a corporate officer. The NLRC ordered petitioner to pay Mesina full backwages and separation pay. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. Subsequently, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed the petition, affirming the NLRC's ruling that Mesina was a regular employee and that petitioner's belated submission of its Amended By-Laws was inadmissible. The CA modified the monetary awards to include a 6% interest rate per annum. The Petition: Auxilia, Inc. filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's Decision and Resolution. Petitioner argues that Mesina was a corporate officer, not an employee, citing her position as Vice President reported to the POEA and indicated in its General Information Sheet. Petitioner contends that the existence of the Vice President position in its by-laws confirms Mesina's status as a corporate officer. Mesina counters that petitioner failed to prove her corporate officer status by not presenting its by-laws or meeting minutes to the labor tribunals. The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA's ruling that Mesina was a regular employee and that her dismissal was illegal due to the lack of just cause and due process, and that petitioner's belated submission of evidence was not justified.
Issue(s)
Whether Mesina is a regular employee of petitioner. Whether petitioner validly terminated Mesina from employment.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that Mesina was a regular employee and her dismissal was illegal. Petitioner Auxilia, Inc. is ordered to pay respondent Nelyn Carpio Mesina full backwages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, and attorney's fees. Legal interest at six percent (6%) per annum shall be imposed on all monetary awards from finality of the Decision until full payment. The case is referred to the Labor Arbiter for determination of the total monetary award.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether Mesina is a regular employee: The Court affirmed the findings of the NLRC and CA that Mesina was a regular employee. The Court reiterated that for a person to be considered a corporate officer, their position must be enumerated in the Corporation Code or created by the corporation's by-laws, and they must be elected by the directors or stockholders. Petitioner failed to present its by-laws before the labor tribunals to prove Mesina's status as a corporate officer. Even the belatedly submitted Amended By-Laws were insufficient as there was no proof of Mesina's election to the position of Vice President through board resolutions or minutes of meetings. Allegations unsupported by substantial evidence do not constitute proof. Therefore, Mesina was presumed to be a regular employee. On the issue of whether petitioner validly terminated Mesina's employment: The Court found Mesina's dismissal to be illegal. Petitioner failed to present convincing proof of a just or authorized cause for termination. While petitioner alleged that Mesina's actions regarding vessel accreditation caused damage, there was no showing that an investigation was conducted or that Mesina was administratively charged. Furthermore, Mesina was dismissed without due process. She was not given a prior written notice apprising her of the grounds for termination, nor was she given an opportunity to be heard and defend herself. The dismissal was summarily effected through a memorandum, violating the twin requirements of notice and hearing. Consequently, the dismissal was tainted with illegality. As an illegally dismissed employee, Mesina is entitled to backwages and reinstatement. However, given the nature of her position as Vice President, Head of Legal, and Head of Liaison Officers, which involved trust and confidence, and the manner of her dismissal, the doctrine of strained relations applies, making reinstatement not viable. Thus, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement is awarded. Mesina is also entitled to attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award for being compelled to litigate to seek redress. All monetary awards shall earn legal interest at six percent (6%) per annum from finality of the Decision until full payment.
Main Doctrine
A corporate officer, to be considered as such, must hold a position created by the corporation's by-laws and must be elected by the directors or stockholders. Failure to prove this status through proper documentation, such as board resolutions or minutes of meetings, leads to the presumption of an employer-employee relationship, rendering the dismissal illegal if not done with just cause and due process.