Intra-corporate tiffs beyond labor commission’s authority

The Supreme Court has ruled that intra-corporate disputes are not within the authority of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) to decide on but subject to the jurisdiction of the regular courts. The Supreme Court Second Division, in a decision written by Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, affirmed an earlier ruling by the Court of Appeals that dismissed the motion for reconsideration of one Leslie Okol, vice president of Slimmers World.

The appellate court, in a decision dated October 18, 2002, set aside the NLRC’s resolution dated May 29, 2001 and affirmed the labor arbiter’s order dated March 20, 2000.

It ruled that the case, being an intra-corporate dispute, falls within the jurisdiction of the regular courts pursuant to Republic Act 8799.

The appellate court said that the labor commission had acted without jurisdiction in giving due course to the complaint and deprived respondents of their right to due process in deciding the case on the merits.

Okol filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied in a resolution dated September 22, 2003.

In her petition before the High Court, she said that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that she was a corporate officer and that the case is an intra-corporate dispute falling within the jurisdiction of the regular courts.

Petitioner asserted that even as vice president, the work that she performed was similar to that done by an employee rather than a corporate officer.

She pointed out that mere title or designation in a corporation will not, by itself, determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship, saying that it is the “four-fold” test—the power to hire, the payment of wages, the power to dismiss and the power to control—which must be applied.

Respondent maintained that Okol was a corporate officer at the time of her dismissal from Slimmers World as supported by the general information sheet and director’s affidavit attesting that the petitioner was an officer.

The High Tribunal junked Okol’s arguments, saying, “Clearly, from the documents submitted by respondents, petitioner was a director and officer of Slimmers World. The charges of illegal suspension, illegal dismissal, unpaid commissions, reinstatement and back wages imputed by petitioner against respondents fall squarely within the ambit of intra-corporate disputes.”

Records showed that respondent Slimmers World International operating under the name Behavior Modifications Inc. employed petitioner Okol as a management trainee on June 15, 1992. She rose from the ranks to become head office manager and then director and vice president from 1996 until her dismissal on September 22, 1999. –WILLIAM B. DEPASUPIL, Manila Times