Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd
Upload
51 views1 page

#7 Tabang Vs NLRC G.R. No. 121143, January 21, 1997 Facts

Uploaded by

PNP Mayoyao

This case involves a petition filed by Dr. Tabang challenging her dismissal as Medical Director and Hospital Administrator of a private respondent corporation. The labor arbiter and NLRC dismissed the complaint, finding they did not have jurisdiction as Dr. Tabang was an officer of the corporation appointed by the Board of Trustees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that under Presidential Decree No. 902-A, the SEC has exclusive jurisdiction over controversies involving the appointment or dismissal of corporate officers, as Dr. Tabang's dismissal involved an intra-corporate controversy rather than an employer-employee dispute.

Copyright:

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

#7 Tabang Vs NLRC G.R. No. 121143, January 21, 1997 Facts

Uploaded by

PNP Mayoyao
51 views1 page
This case involves a petition filed by Dr. Tabang challenging her dismissal as Medical Director and Hospital Administrator of a private respondent corporation. The labor arbiter and NLRC dismissed the complaint, finding they did not have jurisdiction as Dr. Tabang was an officer of the corporation appointed by the Board of Trustees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that under Presidential Decree No. 902-A, the SEC has exclusive jurisdiction over controversies involving the appointment or dismissal of corporate officers, as Dr. Tabang's dismissal involved an intra-corporate controversy rather than an employer-employee dispute.

Original Title

Tabang vs NLRC

Copyright

© © All Rights Reserved

Available Formats

DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

This case involves a petition filed by Dr. Tabang challenging her dismissal as Medical Director and Hospital Administrator of a private respondent corporation. The labor arbiter and NLRC dismissed the complaint, finding they did not have jurisdiction as Dr. Tabang was an officer of the corporation appointed by the Board of Trustees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that under Presidential Decree No. 902-A, the SEC has exclusive jurisdiction over controversies involving the appointment or dismissal of corporate officers, as Dr. Tabang's dismissal involved an intra-corporate controversy rather than an employer-employee dispute.

Copyright:

© All Rights Reserved
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
51 views1 page

#7 Tabang Vs NLRC G.R. No. 121143, January 21, 1997 Facts

Uploaded by

PNP Mayoyao
This case involves a petition filed by Dr. Tabang challenging her dismissal as Medical Director and Hospital Administrator of a private respondent corporation. The labor arbiter and NLRC dismissed the complaint, finding they did not have jurisdiction as Dr. Tabang was an officer of the corporation appointed by the Board of Trustees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that under Presidential Decree No. 902-A, the SEC has exclusive jurisdiction over controversies involving the appointment or dismissal of corporate officers, as Dr. Tabang's dismissal involved an intra-corporate controversy rather than an employer-employee dispute.

Copyright:

© All Rights Reserved
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1

#7

Tabang vs NLRC
G.R. No. 121143, January 21, 1997

FACTS:

Petitioner was a founding member, member of the Board of Trustees, and corporate secretary
of private respondent. The Board of Trustees issued a memorandum appointing petitioner as
Medical Director and Hospital Administrator of private respondent in Calamba, Laguna. Petitioner
claims that she received a monthly retainer fee of P5,000.00 from private respondent, but stopped
in November, 1991. Petitioner was tasked to run the affairs of medical center and perform all acts of
administration relative to its daily operations.

On May 1, 1993, petitioner was informed by Dr. Naval that the Board of Trustees passed a
resolution relieving her of her position and appointing Dr. Donasco. Thus, petitioner filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal before the labor arbiter. Respondent moved for the dismissal of the
complaint for lack of jurisdiction. It argued that petitioner’s position was interlinked with her
position as member of the Board of Trustees, hence, her dismissal is an intra-corporate controversy
which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the SEC.

The labor arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. It ruled that the case falls
within the jurisdiction of the SEC, pursuant to Section 5 of PD No. 902-A. Respondent NLRC
affirmed. Hence, the instant petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the NLRC has jurisdiction over the case?

RULING:

No. It is the SEC which has jurisdiction over the case. In the case at bar, considering that
herein petitioner, unlike an ordinary employee, was appointed by Respondent Corporation’s Board
of Trustees in its memorandum, she is deemed an officer of the corporation. Section 5(c) of
Presidential Decree No. 902-A, provides that the SEC exercises exclusive jurisdiction over
controversies in the election appointment of directors, trustees, officers or managers of
corporations, partnerships or associations, applies in the present dispute. Accordingly, jurisdiction
over the same is vested in the SEC, and not in the Labor Arbiter or the NLRC.

A corporate officer's dismissal is always a corporate act, or an intra-corporate controversy,


and the nature is not altered by the reason or wisdom with which the Board of Directors may have
in taking such action.

You might also like