RENATO REAL, Petitioner, SANGU PHILIPPINES, INC. And/ or KIICHI ABE, Respondents

RENATO REAL, Petitioner,
vs.
SANGU PHILIPPINES, INC. and/ or KIICHI ABE, Respondents.
FACTS:
Petitioner Renato Real was the Manager of respondent corporation Sangu Philippines,
Inc., a corporation engaged in the business of providing manpower for general services, like
janitors, janitresses and other maintenance personnel, to various clients. In 2001, petitioner,
together with 29 others who were either janitors, janitresses, leadmen and maintenance men,
all employed by respondent corporation, filed their respective Complaints for illegal dismissal
against the latter and respondent Kiichi Abe, the corporation’s Vice-President and General
Manager. These complaints were later on consolidated.
With regard to petitioner, he was removed from his position as Manager through Board
Resolution 2001-03 adopted by respondent corporation’s Board of Directors. Petitioner
complained that he was neither notified of the Board Meeting during which said board
resolution was passed nor formally charged with any infraction. He just received from
respondents a letter dated March 26, 2001 stating that he has been terminated from service
effective March 25, 2001 for the following reasons: (1) continuous absences at his post at Ogino
Philippines Inc. for several months which was detrimental to the corporation’s operation; (2)
loss of trust and confidence; and, (3) to cut down operational expenses to reduce further losses
being experienced by respondent corporation.
Respondents, on the other hand, refuted petitioner’s claim of illegal dismissal by

alleging that after petitioner was appointed Manager, he committed gross acts of misconduct
detrimental to the company since 2000. According to them, petitioner would almost always
absent himself from work without informing the corporation of his whereabouts and that he
would come to the office only to collect his salaries. As he was almost always absent, petitioner
neglected to supervise the employees resulting in complaints from various clients about
employees’ performance. In one instance, petitioner together with a few others, while
apparently drunk, went to the premises of one of respondents’ clients, Epson Precision (Phils.)
Inc., and engaged in a heated argument with the employees therein.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a complaint for illegal dismissal is intra-corporate and thus
beyond the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter.
RULING:
To determine whether a case involves an intra-corporate controversy, and is to

be heard and decided by the branches of the RTC specifically designated by the Court to
try and decide such cases, two elements must concur: (a) the status or relationship of
the parties, and (2) the nature of the question that is the subject of their controversy.
The first element requires that the controversy must arise out of intra-corporate
or partnership relations between any or all of the parties and the corporation,
partnership, or association of which they are not stockholders, members or associates,
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 it concerns the
individual franchises. The second element requires that the dispute among the parties
be intrinsically connected with the regulation of the corporation. If the nature of the
controversy involves matters that are purely civil in character, necessarily, the case does
not involve an intra-corporate controversy.’
Guided by this recent jurisprudence, we thus find no merit in respondents’

contention that the fact alone that petitioner is a stockholder and director of
respondent corporation automatically classifies this case as an intra-corporate
controversy. To reiterate, not all conflicts between the stockholders and the corporation
are classified as intra-corporate. There are other factors to consider in determining
whether the dispute involves corporate matters as to consider them as intra-corporate
controversies.
No intra-corporate relationship between the parties
As earlier stated, petitioner’s status as a stockholder and director of respondent

corporation is not disputed. What the parties disagree on is the finding of the NLRC and
the CA that petitioner is a corporate officer. An examination of the complaint for illegal
dismissal, however, reveals that the root of the controversy is petitioner’s dismissal as
Manager of respondent corporation, a position which respondents claim to be a
corporate office. Hence, petitioner is involved in this case not in his capacity as a
stockholder or director, but as an alleged corporate officer. In applying the relationship
test, therefore, it is necessary to determine if petitioner is a corporate officer of
respondent corporation so as to establish the intra-corporate relationship between the
parties. And albeit respondents claim that the determination of whether petitioner is a
corporate officer is a question of fact which this Court cannot pass upon in this petition
for review on certiorari, we shall nonetheless proceed to consider the same because
such question is not the main issue to be resolved in this case but is merely collateral to
the core issue earlier mentioned.

RENATO REAL, Petitioner, SANGU PHILIPPINES, INC. And/ or KIICHI ABE, Respondents

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RENATO REAL, Petitioner, SANGU PHILIPPINES, INC. And/ or KIICHI ABE, Respondents

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RENATO REAL, Petitioner, SANGU PHILIPPINES, INC. And/ or KIICHI ABE, Respondents

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RENATO REAL, Petitioner,

Respondents, on the other hand, refuted petitioner’s claim of illegal dismissal by

To determine whether a case involves an intra-corporate controversy, and is to

Guided by this recent jurisprudence, we thus find no merit in respondents’

No intra-corporate relationship between the parties

As earlier stated, petitioner’s status as a stockholder and director of respondent

You might also like