Case Digest (G.R. No. 216635)
Facts:
Dr. Mary Jean P. Loreche-Amit v. Cagayan de Oro Medical Center, Inc., G.R. No. 216635, June 03, 2019, Supreme Court Second Division, Reyes, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Dr. Mary Jean P. Loreche-Amit began working at Cagayan de Oro Medical Center, Inc. (CDMC) in May 1996 as Associate Pathologist under the late Dr. Jose N. Gaerlan and, after his death, was appointed by CDMC’s Board of Directors as Chief Pathologist for a five‑year term expiring May 15, 2011. On June 13, 2007, the Board passed a resolution recalling petitioner’s appointment; petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, alleging removal without just cause or due process.
Petitioner alleged the recall followed her refusal to help Dr. Hernando Emano’s daughter, Dr. Helga Emano‑Bleza, qualify as a pathologist, and subsequent tensions with Dr. Francisco Oh after petitioner criticized an inter‑office memorandum issued by Dr. Oh. Dr. Oh then issued a memorandum accusing petitioner of conduct unbecoming/insubordination and the Board issued the recall memorandum.
Respondents (CDMC, Dr. Emano and Dr. Oh) contended petitioner was not their employee but merely assisted Dr. Gaerlan in operating the laboratory and also practiced as a pathologist in other hospitals. The Labor Arbiter dismissed petitioner’s illegal dismissal complaint for lack of jurisdiction on March 31, 2008, finding petitioner a corporate officer by virtue of Board appointment. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed that dismissal in a Resolution dated March 31, 2009, treating the dispute as intra‑corporate and thus within the jurisdiction of the regular courts.
Petitioner sought relief by filing a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). In CA‑G.R. SP No. 03067‑MIN the CA dismissed the petition in a Decision dated August 3, 2012 and denied reconsideration in a Resolution dated April...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Do the labor tribunals have jurisdiction over petitioner’s complaint for illegal dismissal?
- If the labor tribunals lack jurisdiction as to corporate officers, was petitioner nonetheless an employee of CDMC under the applicable tests for employer–empl...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)