PART V. SPECIFIC JURISDICTION OF COURTS C.

RTCs my digests of the additional cases assigned NOV 24, 2010

MATLING INDUSTRIAL V. COROS
GR No. 157802; OCTOBER 13, 2010; J. BERSAMIN NLRC reversed – Coros was not a “corporate officer.” His position was not
listed in Matling’s AOI, Constitution and By Laws.

NATURE: Appeal via petition for review on certiorari of a decision and CA dismissed petition; affirmed NLRC. – A corporate officer position must
resolution of the CA. if not listed in the by-laws, have been created by the BOD or SH.
 Coros’ position was an ordinary office.

FACTS: Ricardo R. Coros filed a complaint for illegal suspension and illegal Matling claims that their President was granted “full power to create new
dismissal in the NLRC, Iligan City. offices and appoint the officers thereto,” pursuant to their By-Law No. V:
Officers.
against: Matling and some of its corporate officers: Richard K. Spencer,
Catherine Spencer, Alex Mancilla.
ISSUE/S: Who has jurisdiction over the complaint for illegal dismissal
Matling, et. al. filed MTD, ground: jurisdiction pertains to SEC1 for being filed by a “Vice President for Finance and Administration”?
an intra-corporate dispute and that Coros was a member of Matling’s BOD
prior to his termination. Depends on:
(a.) WON the position is a “corporate officer”?
Pursuant to RA 8799: THE SECURITIES REGULATION CODE, effective (b.) WON Coros as a “Director” and “Stockholder” – would make the case
AUGUST 8, 2000, the SEC’s jurisdiction over all intra-corporate disputes an intra-corporate dispute?
was transferred to the RTC.2
HELD: Properly with the NLRC (LA)3
LA dismissed the case.

1 3
PD 902-A: Article 217 (a) 2 of the LABOR CODE, as amended, which provides as follows:
SECTION 5.
Where the complaint for illegal dismissal concerns a corporate officer, however, the controversy falls under the ARTICLE 217. JURISDICTION OF THE LABOR ARBITERS AND THE COMMISSION. –
jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), (a.) Except as otherwise provided under this Code, the Labor Arbiters shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to
hear and decide, within thirty (30) calendar days after the submission of the case by the parties for decision
1.) because the controversy arises out of intra-corporate or partnership relations: without extension, even in the absence of stenographic notes, the following cases involving all workers, whether
(a.) between and among stockholders, members, or associates, or agricultural or non-agricultural:

(b.) between any or all of them and the corporation, partnership, or association of which they are (1.) Unfair labor practice cases;
stockholders, members, or associates, respectively; and
(2.) Termination disputes;
2.) between such corporation, partnership, or association and the State insofar as the controversy concerns their
individual franchise or right to exist as such entity; or (3.) If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that workers may file involving wages, rates of
pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment;
3.) because the controversy involves the election or appointment of a director, trustee, officer, or manager of such (4.) Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from the employer-employee
corporation, partnership, or association. 14 relations;

Such controversy, among others, is known as an intra-corporate dispute. (5.) Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code, including questions involving the legality of
strikes and lockouts; and
2
SECTION 5.2. The Commission’s jurisdiction over all cases enumerated under SECTION 5 OF PRESIDENTIAL
DECREE NO. 902-A is hereby transferred to the Courts of general jurisdiction or the appropriate Regional Trial Court:
(6.) Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social Security, Medicare and maternity benefits, all other
claims arising from employer-employee relations, including those of persons in domestic or household
service, involving an amount exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) regardless of whether
Provided, that the Supreme Court in the exercise of its authority may designate the Regional Trial Court branches that
accompanied with a claim for reinstatement.
shall exercise jurisdiction over these cases.
(b.) The Commission shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by Labor Arbiters.
The Commission shall retain jurisdiction over pending cases involving intra-corporate disputes submitted for final
resolution which should be resolved within one (1) year from the enactment of this Code.
(c.) Cases arising from the interpretation or implementation of collective bargaining agreements and those arising
from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies shall be disposed of by the Labor Arbiter
The Commission shall retain jurisdiction over pending suspension of payments/rehabilitation cases filed as of 30 June
by referring the same to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration as may be provided in said
2000 until finally disposed.
agreements. (As amended by Section 9, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).

CIV PRO PROF AVENA SY 2010-11 MARY ANN JOY R. LEE 1

PART V. SPECIFIC JURISDICTION OF COURTS
1. He is an “employee” not a “corporate officer”. His position was an
ordinary office.
First of all: Corporate officers in the context of PD 902-A are
exclusively those who are given that character either by the
CORPORATION CODE or by the Corporation’s By-Laws.
The creation of an office pursuant to a By-Law enabling provision is
not enough to make a position a “corporate office.”
C. RTCs my digests of the additional cases assigned NOV 24, 2010
(d.) Treasurer.
Matling’s BOD’s interpretation can easily leave the way open to
circumvent the constitutionally guaranteed “security of tenure” of the
employee.
Even SEC OPINION 25 NOV, 1993 interpreted SEC 25 to mean that the
other positions created by the BOD without amending it’s By-Laws are
NOT “Corporate Offices”.

The criteria for distinguishing between Coros was appointed VP for Nationwide Expansion only by Malonzo,
(a.) Corporate Officers – who may be ousted from office at will and Matling’s General Manager.
(b.) Ordinary Corporate Employees – who may only be terminated for
just cause
Depend on: the manner of creation of the office. 2. No.

Pursuant to SECTION 25 of the CORPORATION CODE4: SC cited: VIRAY V. CA5

1) a position must be expressly mentioned in the By- To determine whether a dispute constitutes an intra-corporate controversy
Laws in order to be a “corporate office.” or not, court considers 2 elements:
2) the power to elect corporate officers was vested by 1st: the status or relationship of the parties;
the law exclusively in the BOD. 2nd: the nature of the question that is the subject of the controversy.
 cannot be delegated
In this case, Coros was supposedly at once an employee, a SH, and a
Matling’s By-Law No. III: DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS listed the 4 Director of Matling6.
corporate officers:
(a.) President; The circumstances surrounding his appointment to office must be fully
(b.) Vice-President; considered to determine WHETHER his dismissal constituted an intra-
(c.) Secretary; and corporate controversy OR a labor termination dispute.

Obviously, respondent was not appointed as VP for Finance &

4

CORPORATION CODE
Administration because of being a SH or Director, but rather because he
SECTION 25. CORPORATE OFFICERS, QUORUM. - Immediately after their election, the directors of a corporation has been employed continuously for 33 years in the company, first as a
must formally organize by the election of:
bookkeeper, climbing up.
1. a president, who shall be a director,
2. a treasurer who may or may not be a director,
Even though he might have become a SH, it had no relation to his
3. a secretary who shall be a resident and citizen of the Philippines, and
promotion. (subsequent yung pag-acquire nya ng shares & directorship)
4. such other officers as may be provided for in the by-laws.

Any two (2) or more positions may be held concurrently by the same person, except that no one shall act as president
Besides, his status as a SH or Director was not affected by his dismissal
and secretary or as president and treasurer at the same time. from employment.
The directors or trustees and officers to be elected shall perform the duties enjoined on them by law and the by-laws of
the corporation.
DISPOSITION: Petition DENIED. CA AFFIRMED.
Unless the articles of incorporation or the by-laws provide for a greater majority, a majority of the number of directors
or trustees as fixed in the articles of incorporation shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of corporate business,
and every decision of at least a majority of the directors or trustees present at a meeting at which there is a quorum
shall be valid as a corporate act, except for the election of officers which shall require the vote of a majority of all the
members of the board. 5
And MAINLAND CONSTRUCTION V. MOVILLA (reiterated)
Directors or trustees cannot attend or vote by proxy at board meetings.
6
Coros denies being a SH & Director
CIV PRO PROF AVENA SY 2010-11 MARY ANN JOY R. LEE 2
PART V. SPECIFIC JURISDICTION OF COURTS C. RTCs
NOTES:
1.) Matling cited: TABANG V. NLRC – the ruling re: other offices are
sometimes created by charter or by-laws of a corporation, or the BOD may
be empowered by the by-laws to create additional officers as may be
necessary &
- an intra-corporate controversy is one which arises between a SH & the
Corp. with no distinction, qualification or exemption.
- the ruling here was OBITER DICTUM.
- the dicta was used in:
a.) NACPIL V. INTERCONTINENTAL BROADCASTING CORP
b.) ONGKIKO V. NLRC
c.) DE ROSSI V. NLRC
 SC HELD: “NO LONGER CONTROLLING” for being too
sweeping, does not accord with reason, justice and fair play.
2.) PRUDENTIAL BANK V. REYES was similar – the Asst. VP who rose from
the ranks as well was also illegally dismissed, jurisdiction HELD to be in
NLRC.
my digests of the additional cases assigned NOV 24, 2010
UST filed a MTD, they claimed that they refused to release Sanchez’s TOR
because he was not a registered student, that he did not enroll the last 3
semesters.
UST filed a SUPPLEMENT to their MTD, that Sanchez had filed a letter to
Commission on Higher Education (CHED)7 which has primary jurisdiction to
resolve school controversies.
RTC denied MTD.
CA affirmed RTC.
ISSUES:
1) Who has jurisdiction?
2) WON Sanchez should exhaust administrative remedies first
3) WON Sanchez is guilty of forum shopping
4) WON Complaint failed to state Cause of Action

END OF NOVEMBER 24, 2010 WEDNESDAY CLASS

HELD: SC affirmed CA & RTC.

UST V. SANCHEZ
GR No. 165569, JULY 29, 2010; J. DEL CASTILLO
NATURE: Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the CA
1.) RTC has jurisdiction because the action is one for mandamus &
damages. CHED does not have the power to award damages.
2.) Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies does not apply
because UST failed to demonstrate that recourse to CHED is mandatory or
even possible.
3.) No, CHED does not even have judicial or quasi-judicial powers.

FACTS: Danes B. Sanchez, graduated from UST on April 2, 2002 with a 4.) The complaint states a CAUSE OF ACTION8:
Bachelor’s Degree of Science in Nursing. 7
RA 7722: HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1994

UST refused to release his Transcript of Records, making it impossible for SECTION 8: POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION
him to take the Nursing Board Examinations. SECTION 33: AUTHORITY TO GRADUATE WITHOUT DEPARTMENT APPROVAL

Sanchez filed a Complaint: SECTION 72: WITHHOLDING OF CREDENTIALS.

8
1.) for Damages Caete v. Genuino Ice Company, Inc., G.R. No. 154080, January 22, 2008, 542 SCRA 206, 217, we reiterated the
elements of a cause of action:
2.) to compel UST to release his TOR
Against: x x x "CAUSE OF ACTION" has been defined as an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right or rights
of the other; and its essential elements are:
(a.) UST;
(b.) UST College of Nursing; 1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created;
(c.) Dean Glenda A. Vargas
2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and
(d.) Asst. Dean Ma. Socorro Guanhing
(e.) Registrar Rodolfo N. Clavio 3) an act or omission on the part of the named defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach
of the obligation of defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages.
CIV PRO PROF AVENA SY 2010-11 MARY ANN JOY R. LEE 3
PART V. SPECIFIC JURISDICTION OF COURTS C. RTCs my digests of the additional cases assigned NOV 24, 2010

TEST OF SUFFICIENCY – whether admitting the facts alleged, the court However, records show respondent occupied not just the lot she
could render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the purchased. She also encroached upon petitioner's lot.
prayer of the petition.
On 13 October 2000, petitioner filed in the Metropolitan Trial Court a
ALLEGATIONS: - clearly show RTC can render valid judgment in complaint for accion publiciana praying:
accordance with the prayers in the complaint. 1) that judgment be rendered ordering respondent to vacate the subject
lot;
1.) UST unjustifiably refused to give Sanchez’s TOR despite his having 2) that respondent be ordered to pay P15,000.00 per month by way of
obtained a degree there; reasonable compensation for the use of the lot.
2.) that UST’s claim that he was not enrolled is UNTRUE;
3.) that as a result of UST’s unlawful actions, Sanchez has not been able The MeTC ruled in favor of BF Citiland (except rent was P10K/month),
to take the Nursing Board Exams; even ordering Bodullo to pay P20K atty’s fees & costs of the suit.
4.) that UST violated NCC ARTICLES 19-21;
5.) that UST should be ordered to release his TOR & be held liable for: The MeTC also issued writ of execution & granted the motion for special
order of demolition.
Paragraph 10 of the Complaint does not contain an admission that
Sanchez was not officially enrolled, he even had class cards! Merlinda Bodulla filed in the RTC a petition for certiorari under RULE 65,
seeking dismissal of the case in the MeTC for lack of jurisdiction.
UST was using force and intimidation to force him to admit that he did not
enroll for the last 3 semesters of his schooling. RTC reversed the MeTC – case dismissed, for lack of jurisdiction; alleging
that a suit for accion publiciana fell under the exclusive original jurisdiction
SC agrees with RTC’s finding that a resolution of the case requires full of the RTC.
presentation of evidence during trial.
BF Citiland claimed Bodullon was estopped for participating in all the
proceedings of the MeTC.
DISPOSITION: Petition DENIED. CA & RTC AFFIRMED.
Bodullon countered: lack of jurisdiction can be raised any time.
RTC DIRECTED to continue proceedings.
BF Citiland filed a petition for review under RULE 42: PETITION FOR
REVIEW FROM REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS TO THE COURT OF
APPEALS.

BF CITILAND CORPORATION V. MARILYN B. OTAKE CA dismissed case - saying the proper appeal from the RTC decision is by
GR 173351; July 29, 2010; J. Carpio way of notice of appeal.

NATURE: Petition for review of the Resolutions of CA under RULE 45 Hence, BF Citiland filed this Petition for Review in the SC.

FACTS: BF Citiland Corporation is the registered owner of a lot in ISSUES:

Parañaque City, with an assessed value of P48K. (based on Tax 1) What is the proper mode of appeal from the decision of the RTC?
Declaration). 2) Who has jurisdiction on the accion publiciana case?

On 24 February 1987, respondent Merlinda B. Bodullo bought the HELD:

adjoining lot. 1.) Notice of Appeal – because the RTC decided the case in the exercise
of its Original Jurisdiction.
If these elements are not extant, the complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to
state a cause of action. x x x

CIV PRO PROF AVENA SY 2010-11 MARY ANN JOY R. LEE 4

PART V. SPECIFIC JURISDICTION OF COURTS C. RTCs
i.e. The case filed in the RTC was an Original Action for Petition for Review
on Certiorari under RULE 65.
RULES OF COURT:
RULE 41: APPEAL FROM THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
SECTION 2. MODES OF APPEAL -
(a) ORDINARY APPEAL. - The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases
decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original
jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court
which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving
a copy thereof upon the adverse party. x x x
(b) PETITION FOR REVIEW. - The appeal to the Court of Appeals in
cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for review in accordance
with Rule 42. (Emphasis supplied) x x x
However, in numerous cases, this Court has allowed liberal construction of
the rules when to do so would serve the demands of substantial justice.
Dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is frowned upon.
Thus, notwithstanding petitioner's wrong mode of appeal, the Court of
Appeals should not have so easily dismissed the petition.
2.) MeTC – Under BP 129, as amended, jurisdiction even in accion
publiciana cases is determined by the assessed value of the property.
my digests of the additional cases assigned NOV 24, 2010
or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the
assessed value9 of the property or interest therein does not
exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions
in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed
Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages
of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs:
Provided, That in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes,
the value of such property shall be determined by the assessed
value of the adjacent lots. (Emphasis supplied)
The subject lot, with an assessed value below the jurisdictional limit of
P50,000.00 for Metro Manila, comes within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the MeTC under BP 129, as amended.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition.
We SET ASIDE the Resolutions dated 28 July 2005 and 5 July 2006 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 88995.
We REINSTATE the 25 April 2003 Decision and the 20 June 2003 Order of
the Metropolitan Trial Court (Branch 77) of Parañaque City in Civil Case
No. 11868.
Costs against petitioner.

With the modifications introduced by REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7691, the

jurisdiction of regional trial courts has been limited to real actions where
the assessed value exceeds P20,000.00 or P50,000.00 if the action is filed
in Metro Manila.

If the assessed value is below the said amounts, the action must be
brought before first level courts.

SEC. 33. JURISDICTION OF METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS,

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL
COURTS IN CIVIL CASES. - Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
9
xxx The Court recently explained in Spouses Alcantara v. Nido that assessed value is the worth or value of the property
as fixed by the taxing authorities for the purpose of determining the applicable tax rate.

(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, The assessed value does not necessarily represent the true or market value of the property.

CIV PRO PROF AVENA SY 2010-11 MARY ANN JOY R. LEE 5