G.R. No. 106722 - JOSEMARIA G. ESTRADA, VS. THE HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC..

Ruling

Accordingly, he administratively charged [3] and thereafter preventively suspended. Investigation ensued with the investigating committee recommending petitioners dismissal from service. On 27 December 1990, petitioner received a resolution passed by the PALs Board of Directors (Board for Brevity) declaring him resigned from service effective immediately for "loss of confidence and acts inimical to the interest of the company". [4] Aggrieved, petitioner sued PAL for illegal dismissal with prayer for backwages, damages and other benefits before the Labor Arbiter. Finding that petitioner was illegally dismissed, the Labor Arbiter ordered PAL to reinstate petitioner to his previous position and to pay him backwages and other benefits. [5] On appeal by PAL, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ordered the dismissal of the petitioners complaint holding that jurisdiction over the case lies with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) [6] Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied; hence, this petition for certiorari with the following threshold issues: (1) whether or not the NLRC has jurisdiction over the case for illegal termination filed by petitioner; and (2) whether or not private respondent PAL is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the NLRC. The petition is devoid of merit. We note that the issues raised herein have already been passed upon in Lozon v. National Labor Relations Commission, et. al. [7] and Espino v. National Labor Relations Commission, et. al. [8] In fact, in those cases Lozon and Espino, together with herein petitioner Estrada, were among the several Executive Vice-Presidents of PAL who were dismissed by the Board for their involvement in the same P2 billion PAL anomaly. Lozon and Espino, just like herein petitioner, sued PAL for illegal dismissal. [9] The Labor Arbiters decision in their favor was reversed and ordered dismissed by the NLRC on appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On certiorari, the court ruled as follows: "In Fortune Cement Corporation v. NLRC, the Court has quoted with approval the Solicitor Generals contention that a corporate officers dismissal is always a corporate act and/or intra-corporate controversy and that nature is not altered by the reason or wisdom which the Board of Directors may have in taking such action. Not the least insignificant in the case at bench is that petitioners dismissal is intertwined with still another intra-corporate affair, earlier so ascribed as the "two-billion-peso PALscam, that inevitably places the case under the specialized competence of the SEC and well beyond the ambit of a labor arbiters normal jurisdiction under the general provisions of Article 217 of the Labor Code." [10] x x x x x x x x x "The fact that petitioner sought payment of his backwages, other benefits, as well as moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees in his complaint for illegal dismissal will not operate to prevent the SEC from exercising its jurisdiction unde