This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-02-05 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| In Matling Industrial and Commercial Corporation v. Coros,[30] the Court distinguished between a "regular employee" and a "corporate officer" for purposes of establishing the true nature of a dispute or complaint for illegal dismissal and determining which body has jurisdiction over it. Succinctly, it was explained that "[t]he determination of whether the dismissed officer was a regular employee or corporate officer unravels the conundrum" of whether a complaint for illegal dismissal is cognizable by the LA or by the RTC. "In case of the regular employee, the LA has jurisdiction; otherwise, the RTC exercises the legal authority to adjudicate.[31] | |||||
|
2012-11-28 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Corporate officers are elected or appointed by the directors or stockholders, and are those who are given that character either by the Corporation Code or by the corporation's by-laws.[27] Section 25[28] of the Corporation Code enumerates corporate officers as the president, the secretary, the treasurer and such other officers as may be provided for in the by-laws. In Matling Industrial and Commercial Corporation v. Coros,[29] the phrase "such other officers as may be provided for in the by-laws" has been clarified, thus: Conformably with Section 25, a position must be expressly mentioned in the By-Laws in order to be considered as a corporate office. Thus, the creation of an office pursuant to or under a By-Law enabling provision is not enough to make a position a corporate office. Guerrea v. Lezama, the first ruling on the matter, held that the only officers of a corporation were those given that character either by the Corporation Code or by the By-Laws; the rest of the corporate officers could be considered only as employees of subordinate officials. Thus, it was held in Easycall Communications Phils., Inc. v. King: | |||||