Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 190 views

    Case Digests: Topic Author Case Title GR No Tickler Date Doctrine

    Uploaded by

    Zachary Philipp Lim
    This case discusses the jurisdiction over disputes involving the dismissal of corporate officers. The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal of Malcaba, who was the President of Prohealth Pharma Philippines, was an intra-corporate dispute rather than a labor dispute. As a corporate officer, Malcaba should have filed his complaint with the Regional Trial Court instead of the Labor Arbiter or NLRC, which do not have jurisdiction over intra-corporate disputes. The Court found that as the President of the corporation, Malcaba was considered a corporate officer under the Corporation Code. Therefore, the adjudication of his claims by the Labor Arbiter and NLRC were void for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Digests: Topic Author Case Title GR No Tickler Date Doctrine

    Uploaded by

    Zachary Philipp Lim
    190 views2 pages
    This case discusses the jurisdiction over disputes involving the dismissal of corporate officers. The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal of Malcaba, who was the President of Prohealth Pharma Philippines, was an intra-corporate dispute rather than a labor dispute. As a corporate officer, Malcaba should have filed his complaint with the Regional Trial Court instead of the Labor Arbiter or NLRC, which do not have jurisdiction over intra-corporate disputes. The Court found that as the President of the corporation, Malcaba was considered a corporate officer under the Corporation Code. Therefore, the adjudication of his claims by the Labor Arbiter and NLRC were void for lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Title

    31. LABSTAN_Malcaba_vs_Prohealth Pharma Philippines

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case discusses the jurisdiction over disputes involving the dismissal of corporate officers. The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal of Malcaba, who was the President of Prohealth Pharma Philippines, was an intra-corporate dispute rather than a labor dispute. As a corporate officer, Malcaba should have filed his complaint with the Regional Trial Court instead of the Labor Arbiter or NLRC, which do not have jurisdiction over intra-corporate disputes. The Court found that as the President of the corporation, Malcaba was considered a corporate officer under the Corporation Code. Therefore, the adjudication of his claims by the Labor Arbiter and NLRC were void for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    190 views2 pages

    Case Digests: Topic Author Case Title GR No Tickler Date Doctrine

    Uploaded by

    Zachary Philipp Lim
    This case discusses the jurisdiction over disputes involving the dismissal of corporate officers. The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal of Malcaba, who was the President of Prohealth Pharma Philippines, was an intra-corporate dispute rather than a labor dispute. As a corporate officer, Malcaba should have filed his complaint with the Regional Trial Court instead of the Labor Arbiter or NLRC, which do not have jurisdiction over intra-corporate disputes. The Court found that as the President of the corporation, Malcaba was considered a corporate officer under the Corporation Code. Therefore, the adjudication of his claims by the Labor Arbiter and NLRC were void for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    2S LABSTAN Case Digests

    TOPIC Constitutional Law principles in relation to Labor Law AUTHOR #31_Aguila

    CASE TITLE Malcaba v. Prohealth Pharma Philippines GR NO 209085

    TICKLER DATE 6 June 2018

    DOCTRINE The dismissal of a corporate officer is considered an intra-corporate dispute, not a labor dispute,
    therefore, the jurisdiction over such disputes is with the Regional Trial Court, not with the Labor
    Arbiter.

    The presumption under this provision is that the parties have an employer-employee relationship.
    Otherwise, the case would be cognizable in different tribunals even if the action involves a
    termination dispute.

    FACTS Macalba is the President of Prohealth which is a corporation engaged in the sale of pharmaceutical
    products and health food on a wholesale and retail basis. While Del Castillo is the Chair of the BOD
    and CEO while Busto is the Exec-VP.

    Petitioner Macalba alleged that Del Castillo did acts that made his job difficult. He asked to take a
    leave on October 23, 2007, and when he attempted to return, Del Castillo insisted that he had
    already resigned and had his things removed from his office. He attested that he was paid a lower
    salary and his benefits were withheld. On January 7, 2008, Malcaba tendered his resignation
    effective February 1, 2008.

    He filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal, nonpayment of salaries and 13th
    month pay, damages, and attorney’s fees.

    The Labor Arbiter found that Malcaba was constructively dismissed, since ProHealth never
    controverted the allegation that Del Castillo made it difficult for Malcaba to effectively fulfill his
    duties. He ruled that ProHealth’s insistence that Malcaba’s leave of absence was an act of
    resignation was false since Malcaba continued to perform his duties as President through December
    2007. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner Malcaba declaring that he was illegally dismissed
    by respondents.

    Respondent ProHealth appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which affirmed
    the Labor Arbiter’s decision with modifications. Thus, respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari
    before the CA which reversed and set aside the NLRC decision.

    The CA held that there was no employer-employee relationship between Malcaba and ProHealth
    since he was a corporate officer. Thus, he should have filed his complaint with the RTC, and not with
    the Labor Arbiter since his dismissal from service was an intra-corporate dispute.

    Malcaba contends that he properly filed his Complaint before the Labor Arbiter since he was an
    employee of ProHealth, albeit a high-ranking one. They argue that respondents merely alleged that
    petitioner is a corporate officer but failed to substantiate this allegation.

    2S [AY 2020-2021]
    San Beda University – College of Law
    2S LABSTAN Case Digests

    Respondents insists that petitioner Malcaba was a corporate officer considering that he was not only
    an incorporator and stockholder, but also an elected Director and President of ProHealth. They also
    point out that he filed his labor complaint 7 months after his resignation and that his voluntary
    resignation already disproves his claim of constructive dismissal.

    ISSUE/S W/N Petitioner Malcaba is an employee of ProHealth and is within the jurisdiction of the Labor
    Arbiter and the NLRC
    RULING/S No, the SC held that Malcaba being the President of ProHealth is a corporate officer, and any issue
    on his alleged dismissal is beyond the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter or the NLRC.

    Under the Labor Code, the Labor Arbiter exercises original and exclusive jurisdiction over
    termination disputes between an employer and an employee while the NLRC exercises exclusive
    appellate jurisdiction over these cases:

    “Article 224. Jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters and the Commission. —


    (a) Except as otherwise provided under this Code, the Labor Arbiters shall have original and
    exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within thirty (30) calendar days after the submission of the
    case by the parties for decision without extension, even in the absence of stenographic notes, the
    following cases involving all workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural:

    (2) Termination disputes;

    (b) The Commission shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by Labor
    Arbiters.”

    The presumption under this provision is that the parties have an employer-employee relationship.
    Otherwise, the case would be cognizable in different tribunals even if the action involves a
    termination dispute. At the time of his alleged dismissal, petitioner Malcaba was the President of
    ProHealth.

    Under Section 25 of the Corporation Code, the President of a corporation is considered a corporate
    officer. The dismissal of a corporate officer is considered an intra-corporate dispute, not a labor
    dispute, therefore, the jurisdiction over such disputes is with the Regional Trial Court, not with the
    Labor Arbiter.

    Finding that petitioner Malcaba is the President of respondent corporation and a corporate officer,
    any issue on his alleged dismissal is beyond the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter or the NLRC. Their
    adjudication on his money claims is void for lack of jurisdiction. Therefore, he must return all
    amounts received as judgment award pending final adjudication of his claims.

    NOTES

    2S [AY 2020-2021]
    San Beda University – College of Law

    You might also like