Lex Rex Ph

Matling Industrial vs. Coros


Ricardo Coros was VP for Finance and Admin of Matling Corp and was dismissed by the latter.

In Aug 2000, Coros filed a complaint for illegal suspension and illegal dismissal against Matling in NLRC Iligan City.

Matling Corp moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it is the SEC which has the jurisdiction because this is an intra-corporate controversy since Coros is VP for Finance and Admin.

Coros’ answer: (1) my status as BoD was doubtful, (2) no single share of stock; (3) Assuming he had been a Director, he was removed as VP.

Lower courts
  • LA took jurisdiction. Favored Matling Corp. Dismissed Coros’ petition. Ground: “SEC has jurisdiction”
  • NLRC set aside LA’s dismissal. LA had jurisdiction because Coros is not a corporation officer. Remanded to LA.
  • Matling elevated to CA. CA sustained NLRC ruling.

Issue and Ruling

Is the complaint of Coros (VP for Finance and Admin) for illegal dismissal cognizable by the Labor Arbiter (NLRC) or RTC (before it was SEC)?

Labor Arbiter, because his position as VP is not created by the by-laws, but only by the Corp President through an enabling law. Being a stockholder is irrelevant because the relationship between complainant and defendant corp must be the basis. (the chater of corp must create the complainant’s office)

Matling’s petition is denied.

Other Content You May Be Interested In:

Denmark V. Norway Digest

Full title: Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (Denmark V. Norway), PCIJ Judgment of 5 September 1933 [on sovereignty over land] Full text facts Denmark and

Read More »