G.R. No. 171993 - MARC II MARKETING, INC. AND LUCILA V. JOSON, VS. ALFREDO M. JOSON.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, Marc Marketing, Inc. was made non-operational. Respondent continued to discharge his duties as General Manager but this time under petitioner corporation. Pursuant to Section 1, Article IV [12] of petitioner corporations by-laws, [13] its corporate officers are as follows: Chairman, President, one or more Vice-President(s), Treasurer and Secretary. Its Board of Directors, however, may, from time to time, appoint such other officers as it may determine to be necessary or proper. Per an undated Secretarys Certificate, [14] petitioner corporations Board of Directors conducted a meeting on 29 August 1994 where respondent was appointed as one of its corporate officers with the designation or title of General Manager to function as a managing director with other duties and responsibilities that the Board of Directors may provide and authorized. [15] Nevertheless, on 30 June 1997, petitioner corporation decided to stop and cease its operations, as evidenced by an Affidavit of Non-Operation [16] dated 31 August 1998, due to poor sales collection aggravated by the inefficient management of its affairs. On the same date, it formally informed respondent of the cessation of its business operation. Concomitantly, respondent was apprised of the termination of his services as General Manager since his services as such would no longer be necessary for the winding up of its affairs. [17] Feeling aggrieved, respondent filed a Complaint for Reinstatement and Money Claim against petitioners before the Labor Arbiter which was docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 00-03-04102-99. In his complaint, respondent averred that petitioner Lucila dismissed him from his employment with petitioner corporation due to the feeling of hatred she harbored towards his family. The same was rooted in the filing by petitioner Lucilas estranged husband, who happened to be respondents brother, of a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of their Marriage. [18] For the parties failure to settle the case amicably, the Labor Arbiter required them to submit their respective position papers. Respondent complied but petitioners opted to file a Motion to Dismiss grounded on the Labor Arbiters lack of jurisdiction as the case involved an intra-corporate controversy, which jurisdiction belongs to the SEC [now with the Regional Trial Court (RTC)]. [19] Petitioners similarly raised therein the ground of prescription of respondents monetary claim. On 5 September 2000, the Labor Arbiter issued an Order [20] deferring the resolution of petitioners Motion to Dismiss until the final determination of the case. The Labor Arbiter also reiterated his directive for petitioners to submit position paper. Still, petitioners did not comply. Insisting that the Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction over the case, they instead filed an Urgent Motion to Resolve the Motion to Dismiss and the Motion to Suspend Filing of Position Paper. In an Order [21] dated 15 February 2001, the Labor Arbiter denied both motion