Promotion / transfer

G.R. No. 214092. January 11, 2016.

ECHO 2000 COMMERCIAL CORPORATION, EDWARD N. ENRIQUEZ, LEONORA K. BENEDICTO and ATTY.
GINA WENCESLAO, petitioners, vs. OBRERO FILIPINO-ECHO 2000 CHAPTER-CLO, ARLO C. CORTES and
DAVE SOMIDO, respondents.

Facts

Petitioner Echo is a provider of warehousing management and delivery services while the respondents
are the labor union with Cortes as vp and Somido is an active member. Petitioner issued a memorandum
informing the respondents of their transfer that would entail no change in ranks, status and salaries. The
respondents both stated in letter that they declining promotion because they were happy with their
current position and were not ready for promotion. Petitioners issued the respondent’s new letters of
assignment but respondents did not perform the new duties assigned to them. Successive memoranda
were issued to respondents but refused to acknowledge them which caused repondents to be
suspended and thereafter terminated. Respondents then filed suitand claimed that they were offered
promotions, which were mere ploys to remove them as rank-and-file employees, and oust them as
Union members. The petitioners insisted that the respondents were merely transferred, and not
promoted. Their insubordination constituted just cause to terminate them from employment. The labor
arbiter favored Petitioner, NLRC granted respondent’s appeal and CA upheld the NLRC decision.

Issue

Whether or not respondents validly refused to accept promotion

Held

Yes. In the case at bench, a Warehouse Checker and a Forklift Operator are rank-and-file employees. On
the other hand, the job of a Delivery Supervisor/Coordinator requires the exercise of discretion and
judgment from time to time. Specifically, a Delivery Supervisor/Coordinator assigns teams to man the
trucks, oversees the loading of goods, checks the conditions of the trucks, coordinates with account
specialists in the outlets regarding their delivery concerns, and supervises other personnel about their
performance in the warehouse. A Delivery Supervisor/Coordinator's duties and responsibilities are
apparently not of the same weight as those of a Warehouse Checker or Forklift Operator. Hence, despite
the fact that no salary increases were effected, the assumption of the post of a Delivery
Supervisor/Coordinator should be considered a promotion. The respondents' refusal to accept the same
was therefore valid.
G.R. No. 201298. February 5, 2014.*

RAUL C. COSARE, petitioner, vs. BROADCOM ASIA, INC. and DANTE AREVALO, respondents.

Facts

Petitioner Cosare is an incorporator and AVP of Sales of the respondent corporation. Abiog is the VP of
sales and Cosare’s immediate supervisor while Arevalo is the president of the respondent corporation.
Petitioner sent a confidential memo to Arevalo informing him that about Abiog’s conduct and anomalies
with his work. Arevalo did not act on the letter and instead called Cosare to a meeting therein asking
him to resign. Petitioner received another memo charging him with serious misconduct and giving him
48 hours to answer. The following day, petitioner was barred from entering his workplace. Petitioner
sent a memo to the company explaining his side but it was refused on the ground of being late.
Petitioner then filed the labor complaint claiming illegal suspension and that he was constructively
dismissed. Respondent countered and claimed that petitioner commited act inimical to the corporation
and that he abandoned his job. The LA dismissed that case but the NLRC reversed the decision. The CA
held that the case was an intra-corporate controversy under the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC.

Issue

Whether or not the dispute is an intra-corporate controversy

Held

No. Time and again, the Court has ruled that in determining the existence of an intra-corporate dispute,
the status or relationship of the parties and the nature of the question that is the subject of the
controversy must be taken into account. Considering that the pending dispute particularly relates to
Cosare’s rights and obligations as a regular officer of Broadcom, instead of as a stockholder of the
corporation, the controversy cannot be deemed intra-corporate. This is consistent with the "controversy
test" explained by the Court in Reyes v. Hon. RTC, Br. 142, to wit:

Under the nature of the controversy test, the incidents of that relationship must also be considered for
the purpose of ascertaining whether the controversy itself is intra-corporate. The controversy must not
only be rooted in the existence of an intra-corporate relationship, but must as well pertain to the
enforcement of the parties’ correlative rights and obligations under the Corporation Code and the
internal and intra-corporate regulatory rules of the corporation. If the relationship and its incidents are
merely incidental to the controversy or if there will still be conflict even if the relationship does not
exist, then no intra-corporate controversy exists. (Citation omitted)

It bears mentioning that even the CA’s finding that Cosare was a director of Broadcom when the dispute
commenced was unsupported by the case records, as even the General Information Sheet of 2009
referred to in the CA decision to support such finding failed to provide such detail.

All told, it is then evident that the CA erred in reversing the NLRC’s ruling that favored Cosare solely on
the ground that the dispute was an intra-corporate controversy within the jurisdiction of the regular
courts.