Rural Bank of Coron versus Annalisa Cortes

Facts:

1. Respondent Annalisa Cortes was hired as clerk of the Rural Bank of Coron. She was still single
then.
2. Later, she married one of the family which ran the corporation.
3. Respondent later on became the Financial Assistant, Personnel Officer and Corporate Secretary
of The Rural Bank of Coron, and some other sensitive positions in the sister companies of the
Bank namely, Empire Cold Storage and Development Corporation, and Citizens Development
Incorporated. These are firms which were practically financially controlled by her sister-in-law,
Anita Cortes-Garcia.
4. On examination of the financial books of the corporations by petitioner Sandra Garcia Escat, she
found out that respondent was involved in several anomalies, which prompted petitioners to
terminate respondent’s services on November 23, 1998 in petitioner corporations.
5. Annalisa stated her willingness to abide by the decision regarding her termination, but stressed
her right to separation pay.
6. When her demand went unheeded, respondent Annalisa filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
and non-payment of salaries and other benefits with the NLRC.
7. Petitioners moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction,
contending that the case was an intra-corporate controversy involving the removal of a
corporate officer, respondent being the Corporate Secretary of the Rural Bank of Coron, Inc.,
hence, cognizable by the SEC pursuant to PD 9 0 2-A.
8. The LA found that Annalisa was not a corporate officer, and thus the case falls within the ambit
of the jurisdiction of the LA.

Issue:

Whether or not the NLRC had jurisdiction over the case.

Held:

1. The Supreme Court held that the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction over respondent’s complaint.
2. While indeed, respondent was the Corporate Secretary of the Rural Bank of Coron, she was also
its Financial Assistant and the Personnel Officer of the two other petitioner corporations.
3. The case of Mainland Construction vs. Movilla, instructs that a corporation can engage its
corporate officers to perform services under a circumstance which would make them
employees.
4. Thus, the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction over respondent’s complaint.
5. Petition is denied.