FACTS:

Raul C. Cosare filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Broadcom Asia, Inc. and Dante Arevalo. Cosare alleged that he was employed as a salesman in April 1993 and became an incorporator when Arevalo established Broadcom in December 2000. He was later promoted to Assistant Vice President for Sales and Head of the Technical Coordination. In March 2009, Cosare reported alleged anomalies committed by his immediate superior, Alex Abiog, to Arevalo. Instead of addressing the accusations, Arevalo allegedly asked Cosare to resign in exchange for financial assistance. When Cosare refused, he received a memo charging him with serious misconduct and willful breach of trust, leading to his suspension and denial of access to the company premises.

Cosare then filed a labor complaint, claiming constructive dismissal and illegal suspension. He was issued a show-cause memo on March 30, 2009, which he responded to the following day. However, the respondents refused to accept the response, so Cosare served it by registered mail. On April 3, 2009, he filed the labor complaint. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for failure to prove dismissal and lack of substantiation. Cosare appealed to the NLRC, which ruled in his favor, finding constructive dismissal, and awarding backwages, separation pay, and damages. The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC decision, stating that the case fell under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court as an intra-corporate controversy.

In a separate case, Cosare filed a labor complaint against Super Ace for constructive and illegal dismissal. The respondents moved to dismiss, arguing that the Labor Arbiter did not have jurisdiction over an intra-corporate dispute. The motion was denied, and the LA rendered a decision in favor of Cosare, which was affirmed by the NLRC. However, the CA reversed the decision, holding that the dispute fell under the original jurisdiction of the RTC. The CA relied on the General Information Sheet submitted by the respondents to the Securities and Exchange Commission to prove Cosare held a corporate office. Cosare's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading him to file a petition seeking the resolution of the issues regarding whether the case was an intra-corporate dispute under the RTC's jurisdiction and if he was constructively and illegally dismissed.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the Labor Arbiter or the regular courts have jurisdiction over the subject controversy.

2. Whether the petitioner is considered a corporate officer.

3. Whether the position held by Cosare was a corporate office created in accordance with the Corporation Code.

4. Whether the dispute between Cosare and Broadcom is an intra-corporate controversy.

5. Whether there was constructive dismissal.

6. Whether the respondents complied with the procedural requirements for terminating the employment of Cosare.

7. Whether there was abandonment of work.

8. Whether Cosare's failure to report to work constituted abandonment of his employment.

9. Whether the respondents' actions amounted to constructive dismissal.

10. Whether the NLRC's monetary award in favor of Cosare should be modified.

RULING:

1. The Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction over the subject controversy. While an intra-corporate controversy generally falls within the jurisdiction of the regular courts, when the dispute involves a charge of illegal dismissal, it may fall under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. In this case, the petitioner's complaint for illegal dismissal falls under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter since he was not considered a corporate officer.

2. The petitioner is not considered a corporate officer. For an individual to be considered a corporate officer, two circumstances must concur: (1) the creation of the position under the corporation's charter or by-laws, and (2) the election of the officer by the directors or stockholders. In this case, the petitioner's position as AVP for Sales was not specifically created under the corporation's by-laws, nor was he elected or appointed to such position by the directors. Therefore, he cannot be considered a corporate officer.

3. The position held by Cosare was not a corporate office. The enabling clause in the corporation's by-laws and the subsequent board resolution cannot make the position a corporate office. The board of directors has no power to create other corporate offices without amending the by-laws. Cosare's position could be classified as a regular office, not a corporate office.

4. The dispute between Cosare and Broadcom is not an intra-corporate controversy. The controversy pertains to Cosare's rights and obligations as a regular officer, not as a stockholder. The nature of the question and the parties' relationship indicate that it is not an intra-corporate controversy.

5. Yes, there was constructive dismissal. The court held that constructive dismissal occurs when there is a cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely. In this case, the court found that the respondents rejected Cosare's continued involvement with the company and displayed discrimination, insensibility, and disdain towards him, leaving him with no option but to quit.

6. No, the respondents did not comply with the procedural requirements for terminating the employment of Cosare. The court emphasized that employees must be given a reasonable opportunity to submit their written explanation and must be afforded every kind of assistance to prepare adequately for their defense. The court found that the respondents failed to grant Cosare the opportunity to fully explain his defenses and did not provide a detailed narration of the facts and circumstances that served as the basis for the charges against him.

7. No, there was no abandonment of work. The court found that the charge of abandonment was inconsistent with the imposed suspension on Cosare. Abandonment requires the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume employment, which was not present in this case.

8. Cosare's failure to report to work did not constitute abandonment of his employment.

9. The respondents' actions amounted to constructive dismissal.

10. The NLRC's monetary award in favor of Cosare should not be modified.

PRINCIPLES:

• Intra-corporate controversies pertain to disputes involving relationships between the corporation and the public, the state, stockholders, partners, members, or officers, or among stockholders, partners, or associates themselves.

• Jurisdiction over an intra-corporate controversy involving a charge of illegal dismissal may fall under the Labor Arbiter's jurisdiction.

• To be considered a corporate officer, two circumstances must concur: (1) the creation of the position under the corporation's charter or by-laws, and (2) the election of the officer by the directors or stockholders.

• An enabling clause in the corporation's by-laws and a subsequent board resolution cannot create a corporate office without amending the by-laws.

• The status or relationship of the parties and the nature of the question must be considered in determining whether a dispute is an intra-corporate controversy.

• The enforcement of the parties' correlative rights and obligations under the Corporation Code and internal and intra-corporate regulatory rules must be involved for a controversy to be classified as an intra-corporate controversy.

• Constructive dismissal occurs when there is a cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely.

• Employees must be given a reasonable opportunity to submit their written explanation and must be afforded every kind of assistance to prepare adequately for their defense before termination.

• Abandonment of work requires the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume employment.

• In order for an employee's failure to report to work to be considered abandonment of employment, it must be voluntary and indicate an intention to sever the employer-employee relationship.

• Constructive dismissal occurs when there is a cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely, as a form of dismissal.

• An illegally or constructively dismissed employee is entitled to either reinstatement, if viable, or separation pay, if reinstatement is no longer viable, as well as backwages.

• Exemplary damages may be awarded if there is a finding of bad faith and a wanton, oppressive, and malevolent manner of dismissal.

• Solidary liability may be imposed on the employer and its responsible officers for monetary awards in cases of constructive dismissal.