Barba vs. Liceo de Cagayan, G.R. No. 193857, Nov.

28,
2012
Facts:
● Petitioner was a medical officer/school physician for respondent
university in the year 1993.
● In 1994, she was given a scholarship grant for residency training. Such
scholarship required that petitioner render 10 years of service within
the university in whatever position the school desires after finishing
her training.
● After completing her training in 1997, petitioner was appointed dean of
the College of Physical Therapy at respondent university for a period of
3 years.
● On March, 2005, the College of Physical Therapy was closed
indefinitely due to declining number of enrollees.
● Petitioner was relieved from her position and would go on leave
without pay on April 2005.
● Later that same month, petitioner was ordered by respondent’s officers
to report to the college of nursing in order to receive her teaching
load.
● Petitioner refused stating that she had not committed to teaching
nursing and that her employment was not dependent on teaching load.
● Respondent university refused to process her separation benefits as
requested and threatened her with sanctions and dismissal if she
refused to report to the College of Nursing.
● Petitioner replied that teaching nursing was not related to her
scholarship and training. Furthermore, coercing her to be a faculty
member from her position as Dean is a demotion equivalent to
constructive dismissal.
● The labor arbiter ruled in favor of Respondent stating that there was
no constructive dismissal. It then ordered the reinstatement of
respondent without backwages
● The NLRC reversed the LA ruling. It held that there was indeed a
constructive dismissal and ordered the payment of backwages.
CA Ruling:
Respondents claimed that petitioner was a corporate officer since her
office was created by the by-laws and her appointment, compensation,
duties and functions were approved by the board of directors. Therefore, the
case should be field with the regular courts and not with the labor tribunals.
The CA held that the position of a College Dean is a corporate office and
therefore the labor tribunals had no jurisdiction over the complaint for
constructive dismissal. They held that the position of Dean
CA held that the position of a College Dean is a corporate office and
therefore the labor tribunals had no jurisdiction over the complaint for
constructive dismissal. The CA noted that petitioner's appointment as Dean
of the College of Physical Therapy was approved by the respondent's board
of directors thereby concluding that the position of a College Dean is a
corporate office.
Furthermore, the CA held that the College Director mentioned in
respondent's by-laws is the same as a College Dean and no one has ever
been appointed as College Director.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner was a corporate officer
Ruling:
No. 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. 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.
A quick perusal of respondent’s by-laws shows that there are four officers
specifically mentioned, namely, a president, a vice president, a secretary and
a treasurer. In addition, it is provided that there shall be other appointive
officials, a College Director and heads of departments whose appointments,
compensations, powers and duties shall be determined by the board of
directors.
The Court noted that College Dean was not included in this list of officers.
Petitioner, being an academic dean, also held an administrative post in the
university but not a corporate office as contemplated by law.
Petitioner was not directly elected nor appointed by the board of directors to
any corporate office but her appointment was merely approved by the board
together with the other academic deans of respondent university in
accordance with the procedure prescribed in respondent's Administrative
Manual. The act of the board of directors in approving the appointment of
petitioner as Dean of the College of Therapy did not make her a corporate
officer of the corporation.