You are on page 1of 1

ARSENIO LOCSIN versus NISSAN CAR LEASE PHILIPPINES INCORPORATED, AND LUIS BANSON

Facts:
1.) ARSENIO LOCSIN was elected chairman of Nissan.
2.) He was also appointed executive vice president/treasurer, reporting everyday, receiving salary
and being deducted SSS contribution, withholding tax, etc. just as other employees.
3.) During a board meeting of Nissan, he was not appointed to any of these positions.
4.) He filed a case for illegal dismissal, reinstatement, damages and attorney’s fees at NLRC.
5.) Respondents, instead of filing position paper, filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
6.) The labor arbiter denied the motion to dismiss and ruled that he has jurisdiction over the case.
7.) Respondents filed petition for certiorari at Court of Appeals.
8.) The later granted the petition, and reversed the ruling of the labor arbiter, on the ground that
Locsin was a corporate officer and thus, NLRC has no jurisdiction.
9.) Locsin filed petition for review at Supreme Court.

Issues:
1. 1st. Whether or not, it was proper for respondents to file motion to dismiss, and when denied, to
elevate the matter to the Court of Appeals?
2. 2nd. Whether or not, ARSENIO LOCSIN, who is chairman and executive vice president/treasurer is a
corporate officer?

Held:
1.) On the first issue, the procedure followed by respondents was wrong.
2.) Instead of filing a motion to dismiss, they should have filed a position paper stating therein their
ground for dismissal.
3.) Also, their filing of petition for certiorari at Court of Appeals, on the denial of their motion to
dismiss, was wrong.
4.) The order of the labor arbiter is interlocutory and therefore, inappealable to Court of Appeals.
5.) They should have filed an appeal with the commission, not Court of Appeals per NLRC rules.
6.) But the Supreme Court said, they would have to disregard this procedural lapse. For to do so,
would result to injustice. Why? Because if they follow strictly the rules, then they have to
disregard the Court of Appeals decision for lack of jurisdiction and thus, the ruling of the labor
arbiter would be upheld which is a wrong ruling.
7.) On the second issue, LOCSIN who was elected chairman and executive vice president/treasurer,
is a corporate officer because, the position of executive vice president/treasurer is provided for
in the by-laws of NISSAN.
8.) He was elected by the board of NISSAN to such position, according to the by-laws of said
corporation.
9.) Therefore, NLRC has no jurisdiction over his case.
~End~