Scribd
Upload
121 views2 pages

Antonio B. Salenga, Et Al. v. CA, G.R. No. 174941 (2012)

The petitioner, Antonio Salenga, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Clark Development Corporation (CDC) after his position was declared redundant. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ruled it had jurisdiction over the complaint and found CDC guilty of illegal dismissal. The Court of Appeals later ruled the petitioner was a corporate officer, so the case fell under the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission, not the NLRC. The Supreme Court ruled (1) the NLRC had jurisdiction over the appeal as CDC failed to produce valid authorization for the appeal, and (2) CDC and its employees are covered by the Labor Code, not civil service law, so the petitioner is only entitled to retirement benefits based on his employment with

Uploaded by

Elaine Belle Ogayon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
121 views2 pages

Antonio B. Salenga, Et Al. v. CA, G.R. No. 174941 (2012)

The petitioner, Antonio Salenga, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Clark Development Corporation (CDC) after his position was declared redundant. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ruled it had jurisdiction over the complaint and found CDC guilty of illegal dismissal. The Court of Appeals later ruled the petitioner was a corporate officer, so the case fell under the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission, not the NLRC. The Supreme Court ruled (1) the NLRC had jurisdiction over the appeal as CDC failed to produce valid authorization for the appeal, and (2) CDC and its employees are covered by the Labor Code, not civil service law, so the petitioner is only entitled to retirement benefits based on his employment with

Uploaded by

Elaine Belle Ogayon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Antonio B. Salenga, et al. v. CA, G.R. No.

174941 (2012)

FACTS: As part of the reorganization scheme of the Clark Development Corporation (CDC), the position
of head executive assistant the position held by petitioner was declared redundant. With this, petitioner
received an Order stating that his employment was to be terminated thirty (30) days from notice of such
Order. Petitioner then filed before the National Labor Relations Commission-Regional Arbitration Branch
(NLRC-RAB) a Complaint for illegal dismissal with a claim for reinstatement and payment of back
wages, benefits, and moral and exemplary damages against respondent CDC and Colayco. In defense,
respondents alleged that the NLRC had no jurisdiction to entertain the case on the ground that petitioner
was a corporate officer and, thus, his dismissal was an intra-corporate matter falling properly within the
jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The Labor Arbiter (LA) held that the
NLRC had jurisdiction over the Complaint, considering that petitioner was not a corporate officer but a
managerial employee. He found CDC and Colayco guilty of illegal dismissal, and ordered them to pay
petitioner his backwages. Private respondents appealed. While the appeal is pending, CDC’s CEO
Singson ordered the reinstatement of petitioner to his former position. Subsequently, CDC issued a
Memorandum, which offered all managers of respondent corporation an early separation/redundancy
program and a retirement plan granting higher benefits to the managerial employees. Petitioner then filed
an application for the early retirement program. The NLRC affirmed LA’s decision. Both parties filed
their motions for reconsideration, and while they are pending, another issue arose regarding the
computation of the retirement benefits of petitioner. Petitioner claimed that the computation of his
retirement benefits should also include the forty (40) years he had been in government service in
accordance with Republic Act No. (R.A.) 8291, or the GSIS Act, and should not be limited to the length
of his employment with respondent corporation only. The NLRC affirmed the order of LA and further
ordered the payment of petitoner’s retirement benefits. The Court of Appeals held that petitioner Salenga
was a corporate officer and that the case is within the jurisdiction of the SEC, not the NLRC. Hence, it
dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal and ordered the restitution of the P3,222,400 already
awarded to petitioner.

ISSUE:

(1) Whether or not the NLRC has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by Timbol-Roman and
former CDC CEO Colayco.

(2) Whether CDC is under the civil service laws on retirement. 

RULING: 

(1) The NLRC has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by Timbol-Roman and former CDC CEO
Colayco.A corporation can only exercise its powers and transact its business through its board of directors
and through its officers and agents when authorized by a board resolution or its bylaws. Absent the
requisite board resolution, neither Timbol-Roman nor Atty. Mallari, who signed the Memorandum of
Appeal and Joint Affidavit of Declaration allegedly on behalf of respondent corporation, may be
considered as the appellant and employer. The OGCC failed to produce any valid authorization from the
board of directors despite petitioner Salengas repeated demands. 
(2) Pursuant to Article IX-B, Sec. 2(1), the civil service embraces only those government owned or
-controlled corporations with original charter. As such, respondent CDC and its employees are covered by
the Labor Code and not by the Civil Service Law, because it has no original charter. Hence, petitioner
Salenga is entitled to receive only his retirement benefits based only on the number of years he was
employed with the corporation under the conditions provided under its retirement plan, as well as other
benefits given to him by existing laws.

You might also like