Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Cosare v. Broadcom Asia, February 5, 2014
Cosare v. Broadcom Asia, February 5, 2014
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
535
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b59682669e5c68780000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/20
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 715
536
537
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b59682669e5c68780000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/20
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 715
538
employee must have failed to report for work or must have been
absent without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) there must have
been a clear intention on the part of the employee to sever the
employer-employee relationship manifested by some overt act.’ ”
Cosare’s failure to report to work beginning April 1, 2009 was
neither voluntary nor indicative of an intention to sever his
employment with Broadcom. It was illogical to be requiring him to
report for work, and imputing fault when he failed to do so after
he was specifically denied access to all of the company’s assets.
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b59682669e5c68780000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/20
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 715
REYES, J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari[1]
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which assails the
Deci-
_______________
[1] Rollo, pp. 14-42.
539
_______________
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo, with
Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Associate Justice Franchito N.
Diamante, concurring; id., at pp. 44-65.
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b59682669e5c68780000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/20
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 715
540
_______________
[7] Id., at pp. 120-121.
[8] Id., at p. 193.
[9] Id., at p. 122.
[10] Id., at p. 123.
541
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b59682669e5c68780000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/20
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 715
_______________
[11] Id.
542
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b59682669e5c68780000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 7/20
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 715
_______________
[12] Id.
[13] Id., at pp. 50-51, 194.
[14] Id., at pp. 125-127.
[15] Id., at p. 54.
543
_______________
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b59682669e5c68780000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 8/20
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 715
544
_______________
[21] Penned by Commissioner Nieves E. Vivar-De Castro, with
Presiding Commissioner Benedicto R. Palacol and Commissioner Isabel G.
Panganiban-Ortiguerra, concurring; id., at pp. 189-203.
[22] Id., at p. 202.
[23] Id., at p. 200.
545
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b59682669e5c68780000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 9/20
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 715
_______________
[24] Id., at p. 56.
[25] Id., at p. 57.
[26] Id., at pp. 44-65.
546
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b59682669e5c68780000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 10/20
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 715
_______________
[27] Id., at pp. 63-64.
[28] Id., at pp. 67-69.
547
The Present Petition
The pivotal issues for the petition’s full resolution are as
follows: (1) whether or not the case instituted by Cosare
was an intra-corporate dispute that was within the original
jurisdiction of the RTC, and not of the LAs; and (2) whether
or not Cosare was constructively and illegally dismissed
from employment by the respondents.
The Court’s Ruling
The petition is impressed with merit.
Jurisdiction over the controversy
As regards the issue of jurisdiction, the Court has
determined that contrary to the ruling of the CA, it is the
LA, and not the regular courts, which has the original
jurisdiction over the subject controversy. An intra-
corporate controversy, which falls within the jurisdiction of
regular courts, has been regarded in its broad sense to
pertain to disputes that involve any of the following
relationships: (1) between the corporation, partnership or
association and the public; (2) between the corporation,
partnership or association and the state in so far as its
franchise, permit or license to operate is concerned; (3)
between the corporation, partnership or association and its
stockholders, partners, members or officers; and (4) among
the stockholders, partners or associates, themselves.[29]
Settled jurisprudence, however, qualifies that when the
dispute involves a charge of illegal dismissal, the action
may fall under the jurisdiction of the LAs upon whose
jurisdiction, as a rule, falls termination disputes and claims
for damages arising from employer-employee relations as
provided in Article 217
_______________
[29] Go v. Distinction Properties Development and Construction, Inc.,
G.R. No. 194024, April 25, 2012, 671 SCRA 461, 479-480, citing Yujuico v.
Quiambao, 542 Phil. 236, 247; 513 SCRA 243, 254 (2007).
548
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b59682669e5c68780000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 11/20
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 715
_______________
[30] G.R. No. 157802, October 13, 2010, 633 SCRA 12.
[31] Id., at p. 15.
[32] G.R. No. 168757, January 19, 2011, 640 SCRA 67.
[33] G.R. No. 173115, April 16, 2009, 585 SCRA 450, 468.
549
have such other officers as may be provided for by its by-laws like,
but not limited to, the vice-president, cashier, auditor or general
manager. The number of corporate officers is thus limited by law
and by the corporation’s by-laws.”[34] (Emphasis ours)
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b59682669e5c68780000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 12/20
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 715
_______________
[34] Supra note 32, at pp. 83-84.
[35] 334 Phil. 424; 266 SCRA 462 (1997).
[36] Id., at p. 429; p. 467.
550
ARTICLE IV
OFFICER
This was also the CA’s main basis in ruling that the
matter was an intra-corporate dispute that was within the
trial courts’ jurisdiction.
The Court disagrees with the respondents and the CA.
As may be gleaned from the aforequoted provision, the only
officers who are specifically listed, and thus with offices
that are created under Broadcom’s by-laws are the
following: the President, Vice President, Treasurer and
Secretary. Although a blanket authority provides for the
Board’s appointment of such other officers as it may deem
necessary and proper, the respondents failed to sufficiently
establish that the position of AVP for Sales was created by
virtue of an act of Broadcom’s board, and that Cosare was
specifically elected or appointed to such position by the
directors. No board resolutions to establish such facts form
part of the case records. Further, it was held in Marc II
Marketing, Inc. v. Joson[38] that an enabling clause in a
corporation’s by-laws empowering its board of directors to
create additional officers, even with the subsequent
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b59682669e5c68780000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 13/20
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 715
_______________
[37] Rollo, p. 110.
[38] G.R. No. 171993, December 12, 2011, 662 SCRA 35.
551
_______________
[39] Id., at p. 54.
[40] Id., at p. 55, citing Matling Industrial and Commercial Corporation
v. Coros, supra note 30, at p. 27.
[41] Rollo, pp. 275-292.
552
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b59682669e5c68780000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 14/20
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 715
_______________
[42] Real v. Sangu Philippines, Inc., supra note 32, at p. 82.
[43] Marc II Marketing, Inc. v. Joson, supra note 38, at p. 51; Real v.
Sangu Philippines, Inc., supra note 32, at p. 81; Speed Distributing Corp.
v. Court of Appeals, 469 Phil. 739, 758; 425 SCRA 691, 706-707 (2004).
[44] 583 Phil. 591; 561 SCRA 593 (2008)
[45] Id., at p. 608; p. 611.
[46] Rollo, pp. 63-64.
553
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b59682669e5c68780000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 15/20
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 715
_______________
[47] Id., at p. 86.
554
_______________
[48] Id., at pp. 50-51.
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b59682669e5c68780000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 16/20
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 715
555
_______________
[53] Id., at p. 446.
[54] 553 Phil. 108; 526 SCRA 116 (2007).
556
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b59682669e5c68780000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 17/20
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 715
_______________
[55] Id., at pp. 115-116; p. 125.
557
_______________
[56] Rollo, p. 152.
[57] Dimagan v. Dacworks United, Incorporated, supra note 52, at p. 447, citing
Exodus International Construction Corporation v. Biscocho, et al., G.R. No.
166109, February 23, 2011, 644 SCRA 76.
558
report for work when they had in fact had [sic] placed him on
suspension. x x x.[58]
_______________
[58] Rollo, p. 200.
[59] G.R. No. 177937, January 19, 2011, 640 SCRA 135.
[60] Id., at p. 144.
559
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b59682669e5c68780000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 20/20