G.R. No. 202974 - NORMA D. CACHO AND NORTH STAR INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL, INC., VS. VIRGINIA D. BALAGTAS.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby made finding the complainant to have been illegally dismissed from employment on July 15, 2004 and concomitantly ordering the respondent North Star International Travel, Inc., to pay her a separation pay computed at thirty (30) days pay for every year of service with backwages, plus commissions and such other benefits which she should have received had she not been dismissed at all. The respondent North Star International Travel, Inc. is further ordered to pay complainant three (3) million pesos as moral damages and two (2) million pesos as exemplary damages plus ten (10%) percent attorney's fees. [6] 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. The Ruling of the NLRC In its Resolution [8] dated September 30, 2008, the NLRC ruled in favor of petitioners, viz .: WHEREFORE, the questioned Decision of the Labor Arbiter is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the complaint is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. [9] 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 by-laws. [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. The NLRC also held that petitioners North Star and Cacho were not estopped from raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction . Citing Dy v. National Labor Relations Commission , [13] the NLRC explained that the Labor Arbiter heard and decided the case upon the theory that he had jurisdiction over the Complaint. Thus, the Labor Arbiter's jurisdiction may be raised as an issue on appeal. Aggrieved, respondent Balagtas moved for reconsideration but was denied. Thus, she elevated the case to the Court of