GR 108710; (September, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 108710 September 14, 1999
ARMANDO T. DE ROSSI, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (First Division), MATLING INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL CORPORATION AND RICHARD K. SPENCER, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Armando T. de Rossi, an Italian citizen, was the Executive Vice-President and General Manager of private respondent Matling Industrial and Commercial Corporation (MICC). His employment was terminated on August 10, 1988. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with damages before the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, ordering his reinstatement with backwages and awarding moral and exemplary damages. MICC appealed to the NLRC, arguing that the termination involved the removal of a corporate officer, which is an intra-corporate matter under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) pursuant to Section 5(c) of P.D. No. 902-A. The NLRC, while expressing its view that it had jurisdiction under the amended Labor Code, dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, applying Supreme Court precedents that recognized the SEC’s exclusive jurisdiction over controversies involving the election or appointment of corporate officers.
ISSUE
Whether the National Labor Relations Commission or the Securities and Exchange Commission has jurisdiction over petitioner’s complaint for illegal dismissal.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the Securities and Exchange Commission has original and exclusive jurisdiction. The Court affirmed the NLRC’s dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner held the position of Executive Vice-President, which was a corporate office created by the corporation’s by-laws. Section 5(c) of P.D. No. 902-A grants the SEC jurisdiction over controversies in the election or appointments of directors, trustees, officers, or managers of corporations. The Court cited a line of cases consistently holding that the removal of corporate officers constitutes an intra-corporate dispute falling under the SEC’s jurisdiction, not the Labor Arbiter or the NLRC. The fact that the petitioner was not a stockholder or elected by stockholders was immaterial, as the by-laws designated the position as a corporate office. The Court also noted that the issue of jurisdiction could be raised at any stage of the proceedings.