CASE DIGEST: Prudential Bank and Trust Company vs. Reyes

 

PRUDENTIAL BANK and TRUST COMPANY, petitioner, vs. CLARITA T. REYES, respondent

G.R. No. 141093                |              February 20, 2001

FACTS:

The case stems from a complaint for illegal suspension and illegal dismissal  filed by Clarita Tan Reyes against Prudential Bank and Trust Company before the labor arbiter. Prior to her dismissal, private respondent Reyes held the position of Assistant Vice President in the foreign department of the Bank, tasked with the duties, among others, to collect checks drawn against overseas banks payable in foreign currency and to ensure the collection of foreign bills or checks purchased, including the signing of transmittal letters covering the same.

The LA ruled in favour of Reyes.

Not satisfied, the Bank appealed to the NLRC which reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision.

The Court of Appeals found that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the dismissal of Reyes is valid. In effect, the Court of Appeals reinstated the judgment of the labor arbiter with modification.

Hence, the Bank’s recourse to the Supreme Court contending in its memorandum that IT IS THE SEC (NOW THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT) AND NOT THE NLRC WHICH HAS ORIGINAL AND EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER CASES INVOLVING THE REMOVAL FROM OFFICE OF CORPORATE OFFICERS.

The Bank also contends that estoppel cannot lie considering that “from the beginning, petitioner Bank has consistently asserted in all its pleadings at all stages of the proceedings that respondent held the position of Assistant Vice President, an elective position which she held by virtue of her having been elected as such by the Board of Directors.”

ISSUE:

Whether the NLRC has jurisdiction over the complaint for illegal dismissal

RULING:

Petitioner Bank can no longer raise the issue of jurisdiction under the principle of estoppel. The Bank participated in the proceedings from start to finish. It filed its position paper with the Labor Arbiter. When the decision of the Labor Arbiter was adverse to it, the Bank appealed to the NLRC. When the NLRC decided in its favor, the bank said nothing about jurisdiction. Even before the Court of Appeals, it never questioned the proceedings on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. It was only when the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of private respondent did it raise the issue of jurisdiction. The Bank actively participated in the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the Court of Appeals. While it is true that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case may be raised at any time of the proceedings, this rule presupposes that laches or estoppel has not supervened.

As for the assertion of the bank, the records of the Court revealed however, such an assertion was made only in the appeal to the NLRC and raised again before the Court of Appeals, not for purposes of questioning jurisdiction but to establish that private respondent’s tenure was subject to the discretion of the Board of Directors and that her non- reelection was a mere expiration of her term.

The bank’s contention that she merely holds an elective position and that in effect she is not a regular employee is belied by the nature of her work and her length of service with the Bank. Private respondent rose from the ranks and has been employed with the Bank since 1963 until the termination of her employment in 1991. As Assistant Vice President of the Foreign Department of the Bank, she is tasked, among others, to collect checks drawn against overseas banks payable in foreign currency and to ensure the collection of foreign bills or checks purchased, including the signing of transmittal letters covering the same. It has been stated that “the primary standard of determining regular employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual trade or business of the employer.

Additionally, “an employee is regular because of the nature of work and the length of service, not because of the mode or even the reason for hiring them.” As Assistant Vice President of the Foreign Department of the Bank she performs tasks integral to the operations of the bank and her length of service with the bank totaling 28 years speaks volumes of her status as a regular employee of the bank. In fine, as a regular employee, she is entitled to security of tenure; that is, her services may be terminated only for a just or authorized cause.