9. Locsin v. Nissan Lease

March 6, 2019 | Author: mc.rockz14 | Category: Certiorari, Arbitration, Jurisdiction, Board Of Directors, Appeal
Share Embed Donate


Short Description

9. Locsin v. Nissan Lease...

Description

G.R. No. 185567

October 20, 2010

ARSENIO Z. LOCSIN,  Petitioner, vs. NISSAN LEASE PHILS. INC. an L!IS "ANSON,  Respondents.

DECISIO N "RION,  J.:

Through a petition for review on certiorari,1 petitioner rsenio !. "ocsin #"ocsin$ see%s the reversa& of the Decision'of the Court of ppea&s #C$ dated ugust '(, '))(,* in +rsenio !. "ocsin v. Nissan Car "ease Phi&s., Inc. and "uis anson,+ doc%eted as C-.R. SP No. 1)*/') and the Reso&ution dated Dece0er 2, '))(,3 den4ing "ocsin5s 6otion for Reconsideration. The assai&ed ru&ing of the C reversed and set aside the Decision7 of the 8on. "aor riter The&0a Concepcion #"aor riter Concepcion$ which denied Nissan "ease Phi&s. Inc.5s #NC"PI$ and "uis T. anson5s #anson$ 6otion to Dis0iss. T8E 9CT:" NTECEDENTS On ;anuar4 1, 122', "ocsin was e&ected ETreasurer$ #E=P>Treasurer$ of NC"PI. s E=P>Treasurer, E=P>Treasurer, his duties and responsii&ities inc&uded? #1$ the 0anage0ent of o f the finances of the co0pan4@ #'$ carr4ing out the directions of the President and>or the oard o f Directors regarding financia& 0anage0ent@ and #*$ the preparation of financia& reports to advise the officers and directors of the financia& condition of NC"PI.A "ocsin he&d this position for 1* 4ears, having een re-e&ected ever4 4ear since 122', unti& ;anuar4 '1, '))7, when he was no0inated and e&ected Chair0an of NC"PI5s oard of Directors./ On ugust 7, '))7, a &itt&e over seven #/$ 0onths after his e&ection as Chair0an of the oard, the  NC"PI oard he&d a specia& 0eeting at the 6ani&a Po&o C&u. One of the ite0s of the agenda was the e&ection of a new set of officers. :nfortunate&4, :nfortunate&4, "ocsin was neither re-e&ected Chair0an nor reinstated to his previous position as E=P>Treasurer.( ggrieved, on ;une 12, '))/, "ocsin fi&ed a co0p&aint for i&&ega& dis0issa& with pra4er for reinstate0ent, pa40ent of ac%wages, ac%wage s, da0ages and attorne45s fees efore the "aor riter against NC"PI and anson, who was then President of NC"PI.2 The Co0pu&sor4 ritration Proceedings efore the "aor riter. On ;u&4 11, '))/, instead of fi&ing their position paper, NC"PI and anson fi&ed a 6otion to Dis0iss,1) on the ground that the "aor riter did not have Burisdiction over the case since the issue of "ocsin5s re0ova& as E=P>Treasurer invo&ves an intra-corporate dispute. On ugust 1A, '))/, "ocsin su0itted his opposition to the 0otion to dis0iss, 0aintaining his  position that he is an e0p&o4ee of NC"PI.

On 6arch 1), '))(, "aor riter Concepcion issued an Order den4ing the 6otion to Dis0iss, ho&ding that her office acuired +Burisdiction to aritrate and>or decide the instant co0p&aint finding eTreasurer is an intra-corporate dispute under the RTC5s Burisdiction. On ugust '(, '))(,1* the C reversed and set aside the "aor riter5s Order den4ing the 6otion to Dis0iss and ru&ed that "ocsin was a corporate officer. Citing PD 2)'-, the C defined +corporate officers as those officers of a corporation who are given that character either 4 the Corporation Code or 4 the corporations5 4-&aws.+ In this regard, the C he&d? Scrutiniing the records, e ho&d that petitioners successfu&&4 discharged their onus of esta&ishing that private respondent was a corporate officer who he&d the position of ETreasurer as provided in the 4-&aws of petitioner corporation and that he he&d such position 4 virtue of e&ection 4 the oard of Directors. That private respondent is a corporate officer cannot e disputed. The position of ETreasurer is specifica&&4 inc&uded in the roster of officers provided for 4 the #0ended$ 4-"aws of petitioner corporation, his duties and responsii&ities, as we&& as co0pensation as such officer are &i%ewise set forth therein.13 rtic&e '() of the "aor Code, the receipt of sa&aries 4 "ocsin, SSS deductions on that sa&ar4, and the e&e0ent of contro& in the perfor0ance of wor% duties F indicia used 4 the "aor riter to conc&ude that "ocsin was a regu&ar e0p&o4ee F were he&d inapp&ica&e 4 the C.17 The C noted the "aor riter5s fai&ure to address the fact that the position of E=P>Treasurer is specifica&&4 enu0erated as an +office+ in the corporation5s 4-&aws.1A 9urther, the C pointed out "ocsin5s fai&ure to +state an4 circu0stance  4 which NC"PI engaged his services as a corporate officer that wou&d 0a%e hi0 an e0p&o4ee.+ The C found, in this regard, that "ocsin5s assu0ption and retention as E=P>Treasurer was ased on his e&ection and suseuent re-e&ections fro0 122' unti& '))7. 9urther, he perfor0ed on&4 those functions that were +specifica&&4 set forth in the 4-"aws or reuired of hi0  4 the oard of Directors.1/+ ith respect to the suit "ocsin fi&ed with the "aor riter, the C he&d that? Private respondent, in e&ated&4 fi&ing this suit efore the "aor riter, uestioned the &ega&it4 of his +dis0issa&+ ut in essence, he raises the issue of whether o r not the oard of Directors had the authorit4 to re0ove hi0 fro0 the corporate office to which he was e&ected pursuant to the

4-"aws of the petitioner corporation. Indeed, had private respondent een an ordinar4 e0p&o4ee, an e&ection conducted 4 the oard of Directors wou&d not have een necessar4 to re0ove hi0 as ETreasurer. 8owever, in an ovious atte0pt to prec&ude the app&ication of sett&ed Burisprudence that corporate officers whose position is provided in the  4-&aws, their e&ection, re0ova& or dis0issa& is suBect to Section 7 of P.D. No. 2)'- #now R..  No. (/22$, private respondent wou&d even c&ai0 in his Position Paper, that since his responsii&ities were a%in to that of the co0pan45s ETreasurer, he was +hired under the preteTreasurer. Second, he received regu&ar wages fro0 NC"PI, fro0 which his SSS and Phi&hea&th contriutions, as we&& as his withho&ding taTreasurer, as shown 4 the 1* 4ears of faithfu& eTreasurer having continuous&4  perfor0ed the functions appurtenant thereto.'7 Thus, he uestions his +uncere0onious re0ova&+ as E=P>Treasurer during the ugust 7, '))7 specia& oard 0eeting. T8E RESPONDENT5S R:6ENTS It its pri& 1/, '))2 Co00ent,'A Nissan pra4s for the denia& of the petition for &ac% of 0erit.  Nissan su0its that the C correct&4 ru&ed that the "aor riter does not have Burisdiction over "ocsin5s co0p&aint for i&&ega& dis0issa&. In support, Nissan 0aintains that "ocsin is a corporate officer and not an e0p&o4ee. In addressing the procedura& defect "ocsin raised, Nissan rushes the issue aside, stating that #1$ this issue was e&ated&4 raised in the 6otion for Reconsideration, and that #'$ in an4 case, Ru&e =I, Section '#1$ of the N"RC does not app&4 since on&4 appea&a&e decisions, reso&utions and orders are covered under the ru&e. T8E CO:RT5S R:"IN e reso&ve to den4 the petition for &ac% of 0erit. t the outset, we stress that there are two #'$ i0portant co nsiderations in the fina& deter0ination of this case. On the one hand, #1$"ocsin raises a procedura& issue that, if proven correct, wi&& reuire the Court to dis0iss the instant petition for using an i0proper re0ed4. On the other hand, there is the #'$sustantive issue that wi&& e disregarded if a strict i0p&e0entation of the ru&es of  procedure is uphe&d. Prefatori&4, we agree with "ocsin5s su0ission that the NC"PI incorrect&4 e&evated the "aor riter5s denia& of the 6otion to Dis0iss to the C. "ocsin is correct in positing that the denia&

of a 0otion to dis0iss is unappea&a&e. s a #enera$ r%$e , an aggrieved part45s proper recourse to the denia& is to fi&e his position paper, interpose the grounds re&ied upon in the 0otion to dis0iss efore the &aor ariter, and active&4 participate in the proceedings. Thereafter, the &aor ariter5s decision can e appea&ed to the N"RC, not to the C. s a ru&e, we strict&4 adhere to the ru&es of procedure and do ever4thing we can, to the point of  pena&iing vio&ators, to encourage respect for these ru&es. e ta%e e&ce't(on  to this genera& ru&e, however, when a strict i0p&e0entation of these ru&es wou&d cause sustantia& inBustice to the  parties. e see it appropriate to app&4 the e
View more...

Comments

Copyright ©2017 KUPDF Inc.
SUPPORT KUPDF