9. Locsin v. Nissan Lease

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