X MATLING INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL CORPORATION v RICARDO R.
COROS
Facts :
Respondent filed a complaint of illegal suspension and illegal dismissal at NLRC
after being terminated as vice president for finance and administration.
Petitioner corporation moved to dismissed the complaint alleging that the complaint was
the jurisdiction of SEC because it is intracorporate controversy being a member of
Matlings Board of directors.
The respondent inisist that his status as a member of the board was doubtful because he
was not elected and he don’t have any shares of stock in the said corporation and that he
got the position because he was rose from the ranks employee.
.
LA ruled in favor of the petitioner and dismissed the case
NLRC ruled that it is not intracorporate matter and it is within the LAs jurisdiction
CA dismissed the petition for certiorari,
Issue: w/n the respondent was a corporate office of Matling or not
Held : No, the respondent was not a corporate office but just an ordinary
The law provides under Article 217. 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:
1. Unfair labor practice cases;
2. Termination disputes;
3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that workers may file
involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of
employment;
4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from the
employer-employee relations;
5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code, including questions
involving the legality of strikes and lockouts; and
6. Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social Security, Medicare and maternity
benefits, all other claims arising from employer-employee relations, including those of
persons in domestic or household service, involving an amount exceeding five thousand
pesos (₱5,000.00) regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement.
(b) The Commission shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by
Labor Arbiters.
(c) Cases arising from the interpretation or implementation of collective bargaining
agreements and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company
personnel policies shall be disposed of by the Labor Arbiter by referring the same to the
grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration as may be provided in said agreements.
(As amended by Section 9, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).
Republic Act No. 8799,15 otherwise known as The Securities Regulation Code, the SEC’s
jurisdiction over all intra-corporate disputes was transferred to the RTC, pursuant to
Section 5.2 of RA No. 8799,
Where the complaint for illegal dismissal concerns a corporate officer, however, the
controversy falls under the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC), because the controversy arises out of intra-corporate or partnership relations
between and among stockholders, members, or associates, or between any or all of
them and the corporation, partnership, or association of which they are stockholders,
members, or associates, respectively; and between such corporation, partnership, or
association and the State insofar as the controversy concerns their individual franchise or
right to exist as such entity; or because the controversy involves the election or
appointment of a director, trustee, officer, or manager of such corporation, partnership, or
association.14 Such controversy, among others, is known as an intra-corporate dispute
In this case, respondent was appointed vice president for nationwide expansion by
Malonzo, petitioner’'s general manager, not by the board of directors of petitioner. It was
also Malonzo who determined the compensation package of respondent. Thus,
respondent was an employee, not a "corporate officer." The CA was therefore correct in
ruling that jurisdiction over the case was properly with the NLRC, not the SEC (now the
RTC).
In order to determine whether a dispute constitutes an intra-corporate controversy or not,
the Court considers two elements instead, namely: (a) the status or relationship of the
parties; and (b) the nature of the question that is the subject of their controversy. in order
that the SEC (now the regular courts) can take cognizance of a case, the controversy
must pertain to any of the following relationships:
a) between the corporation, partnership or association and the public;
b) between the corporation, partnership or association and its stockholders, partners,
members or officers;
c) between the corporation, partnership or association and the State as far as its
franchise, permit or license to operate is concerned; and
d) among the stockholders, partners or associates themselves.
Therefore, the respondent was not a corporate office but just an ordinary
