G.R. No. 252186 . November 06, 2023
AUXILIA, INC., PETITIONER, VS. NELYN CARPIO MESINA, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Auxilia, Inc. hired respondent Nelyn Carpio Mesina on November 14, 2017, as Vice President, Head of Legal, and Head of Liaison Officers for POEA Matters, with a monthly salary of P130,000.00. In April 2018, petitioner directed Mesina to stop working, vacate her office, and turn over company properties as a condition for her last salary. She complied, but her salary was withheld. Despite this, she continued to report for work until May 25, 2018, when she was ordered to leave the premises. Mesina then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of wages.
Petitioner contended that Mesina was not an employee but a stockholder and former member of its Board of Directors, elected to the board to qualify as Vice President. It alleged that Mesina was removed from her corporate positions after losing re-election during a stockholders’ meeting on April 10, 2018, and that a subsequent assembly approved cost-cutting measures discontinuing salaries for directors and officers. Petitioner argued the dispute was intra-corporate, beyond labor tribunal jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC have jurisdiction over Mesina’s complaint for illegal dismissal, which hinges on whether she was a corporate officer or a regular employee.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that Mesina was a regular employee, and her illegal dismissal case was within the jurisdiction of the labor tribunals. The Court emphasized that a corporate officer is one who is appointed or elected in accordance with the corporation’s by-laws or articles of incorporation, and whose duties and responsibilities are defined therein. Petitioner failed to discharge its burden of proof to establish that Mesina was a corporate officer.
Critically, petitioner did not present its by-laws before the Labor Arbiter or the NLRC to prove that the position of Vice President was a corporate office. Its belated submission of an amended by-laws to the Court of Appeals was insufficient, as there was no accompanying proof, such as minutes of a meeting, that Mesina was actually elected to that corporate office by the board of directors or stockholders. Her appointment via a letter, which outlined her duties and compensation as a salaried employee, and the fact that she performed functions typical of an employee rather than a policymaking corporate officer, established an employer-employee relationship. Since her dismissal was without just cause and due process, it was illegal. The labor tribunals correctly assumed jurisdiction, and the monetary awards were affirmed.