GR 201298; (February, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 201298 ; February 5, 2014
RAUL C. COSARE, Petitioner, vs. BROADCOM ASIA, INC. and DANTE AREVALO, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Raul C. Cosare was employed by respondent Dante Arevalo, initially as a salesman in 1993 and later as Assistant Vice President for Sales of Broadcom Asia, Inc. In March 2009, Cosare sent a confidential memo to Arevalo detailing alleged anomalies committed by his immediate superior, Vice President Alex Abiog. Instead of acting on the report, Arevalo allegedly asked Cosare to resign in exchange for financial assistance, which Cosare refused. Subsequently, Cosare received a memo from Arevalo charging him with serious misconduct, including attempting to divert a sale to a competitor, abandoning a company vehicle, failing to submit reports, and recording no sales for twelve months. He was given 48 hours to explain and was suspended from accessing company files and assets.
Cosare claimed he was prevented from reporting to work, barred from retrieving personal belongings, and eventually locked out of the company premises, compelling him to seek barangay assistance. After the respondents refused to accept his written explanation, Cosare filed a complaint for constructive dismissal and illegal suspension before the Labor Arbiter. The respondents contested jurisdiction, arguing Cosare was a corporate officer, not a mere employee, thus placing the dispute under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction over Cosare’s complaint for illegal dismissal, or if the case falls under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court as an intra-corporate dispute.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction. The legal logic hinges on the distinction between a corporate officer and a regular employee. Jurisdiction over dismissal cases involving corporate officers, who are appointed by the board of directors or shareholders as defined by the corporation’s bylaws, lies with the RTC under intra-corporate dispute rules. Conversely, jurisdiction over regular employees, hired by the corporation’s management for routine operations, lies with the Labor Arbiter.
The Court found Cosare to be a regular employee. His position as Assistant Vice President for Sales was not created by Broadcom’s bylaws or by a board resolution. His appointment was a routine corporate act performed by management, not a result of election or appointment by the board of directors to a specific corporate office defined in the bylaws. His incorporation as a stockholder with minimal shares did not automatically make him a corporate officer; his primary role was as a sales executive performing regular duties under an employer-employee relationship. His dismissal, therefore, arose from an employment contract, not from corporate governance. Consequently, the case is a labor dispute over which the Labor Arbiter properly exercises jurisdiction. The Court reinstated the NLRC decision which had found illegal dismissal.