Case Digest (G.R. No. 108710)
Facts:
Armando T. De Rossi v. National Labor Relations Commission (First Division), Matling Industrial and Commercial Corporation and Richard K. Spencer, G.R. No. 108710, September 14, 1999, the Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Armando T. De Rossi, an Italian citizen, served as Executive Vice‑President and General Manager of private respondent Matling Industrial and Commercial Corporation (MICC) from July 1, 1985 until his termination on August 10, 1988. Aggrieved, petitioner filed with the NLRC, National Capital Region, on September 21, 1989, NLRC Case No. 00‑09‑04460‑89, a complaint for illegal dismissal seeking reinstatement and damages.
Labor Arbiter Manuel P. Asuncion issued a decision on November 27, 1991, granting reinstatement, full backwages, P800,000.00 as moral damages, P700,000.00 as exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the award. MICC appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), First Division, contending that the Labor Arbiter committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction because petitioner’s removal concerned an elective corporate office and thus fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
While the appeal was pending, petitioner moved for issuance of a writ of execution (January 6, 1992) asserting that the reinstatement order was immediately executory under Article 223 of the Labor Code. OIC Executive Labor Arbiter Lita Aglibut issued a writ of execution on July 7, 1992 directing collection of backwages (P675,000.00) and offering physical or constructive reinstatement. Private respondents moved for reconsideration before the NLRC, reiterating that the dispute was an intra‑corporate matter cognizable only by the SEC, and citing several Supreme Court precedents (including PSBA v. Leano, Dy v. NLRC, Fortune Cement Corp. v. NLRC).
On October 30, 1992, the NLRC rendered a decision dismissing the case for want of jurisdiction under Section 5(c) of P.D. No. 902‑A, explaining that, although the Commission believed it had jurisdiction, it felt constrained to follow the Supreme Court’s prior rulings assigning such intra‑corporate controversies to the SEC. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 on February 11, 1993, asserting (1) that the N...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in ruling that jurisdiction over petitioner’s dismissal rests with the Securities and Exchange Commission rather than the Labor Arbiter or the NLRC?
- Are the issues raised in petitioner’s complaint ripe for adjudicatio...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)