Uson vs. PLDT Employees Credit Cooperative

A complaint for illegal dismissal filed by a cooperative officer constitutes an intra-cooperative dispute within the jurisdiction of the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA), provided the officer's position is created by the cooperative's by-laws and the officer is appointed by the board of directors.

Petitioner Julius R. Uson was an active member of PLDT Employees Credit Cooperative (PECCI) since 1981 and held various positions before his appointment as General Manager. Respondent PECCI is a cooperative registered with the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA) and existing under Philippine laws. The dispute arose from Uson's dismissal from his position as General Manager by the PECCI Board of Directors, leading to a jurisdictional question on whether his dismissal was a labor dispute cognizable by labor tribunals or an intra-cooperative dispute for the CDA.

Julius R. Uson had been an active member of PLDT Employees Credit Cooperative (PECCI) since 1981, serving as committee secretary and director before his appointment as Acting General Manager on October 10, 2013, via Board Resolution No. SB 2013-NB-10 (1)-31. His appointment as General Manager was formalized on May 19, 2014, through Board Resolution No. 6th SB 2014-05(4)-17, which authorized the hiring of Uson as a regular employee and his simultaneous reappointment as General Manager, effective May 22, 2014. This appointment was ratified by the PECCI Representative Assembly on March 28, 2015.

On April 17, 2017, the PECCI Board of Directors passed Board Resolution No. 32nd SB 2017-04 (02)-23, declaring all appointive positions in the cooperative vacant, including Uson's position as General Manager, to give the new board a free hand in selecting appointive officers. Two days later, Uson was required to turn over all PECCI properties in his possession. A memorandum subsequently circulated naming Noel P. Santos, Jesus L. Siy, Miguel B. Dawis, and Sergio P. Navarra as newly appointed directors.

Aggrieved, Uson filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter on May 30, 2017, arguing he was a regular employee entitled to reinstatement, backwages, and damages. PECCI countered that Uson was a cooperative officer and the dispute was an intra-cooperative matter for the CDA. The Labor Arbiter ruled in Uson's favor, a decision modified and affirmed by the NLRC. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the NLRC, dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and ordering Uson to return the monetary awards. Uson then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

• Jurisdiction: Petitioner argued that the NLRC has jurisdiction over his illegal dismissal case because he was a regular employee of PECCI.
• Status as Employee: Petitioner maintained that the phrase "regular employee and simultaneous reappointment as General Manager" in the board resolution conferred upon him the status of both a regular employee and a cooperative officer.
• Reliefs Sought: Petitioner argued that he was entitled to reinstatement, all benefits accruing to his position, damages, and attorney's fees.
• Personal Liability of Directors: Petitioner argued that Santos, Siy, Dawis, and Navarra are jointly and personally liable for his bad faith dismissal from employment.

• Intra-cooperative Dispute: Respondent argued that Uson was a cooperative officer of PECCI and that there existed an intra-cooperative dispute, which should be adjudicated by the CDA.
• Applicable Law: Respondent invoked the application of Republic Act No. 9520 or the Philippine Cooperative Development Code of 2008.

• Jurisdiction: Whether the present case is an intra-cooperative dispute within the jurisdiction of the CDA or an ordinary labor dispute that the labor tribunals may properly take cognizance of.

• Jurisdiction: No. The case is an intra-cooperative dispute within the jurisdiction of the CDA. The dismissal of a cooperative officer, whose position is created by the by-laws and who is appointed by the board of directors, is not a labor dispute cognizable by labor tribunals.

• Jurisdiction: Under the Cooperative Code (RA 9520) and the CDA Charter (RA 11364), intra-cooperative disputes are within the jurisdiction of the CDA. An "officer" of a cooperative includes the general manager, provided the office is created by the by-laws and the officer is elected or appointed by the board of directors. Uson's position as General Manager was created by PECCI's By-Laws, and he was appointed by the PECCI Board of Directors. The phrase "regular employee and simultaneous reappointment as General Manager" was construed merely to mean he was appointed as a full-time General Manager, distinguishing it from his prior acting capacity, not to confer dual status. Since Uson is a cooperative officer, his dismissal is an intra-cooperative dispute. Consequently, the labor tribunals lacked jurisdiction, rendering their rulings void and ineffective, and requiring Uson to return the erroneously awarded monetary sums as a matter of equity.

• Intra-cooperative Dispute Doctrine — A complaint for illegal dismissal filed by a cooperative officer constitutes an intra-cooperative dispute, which is beyond the jurisdiction of labor tribunals and falls under the jurisdiction of the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA). To be considered a cooperative officer, two elements must concur: (1) the office must be created by the charter or by-laws of the cooperative; and (2) the officer must be elected by the board of directors. The Court applied this by finding that Uson's position as General Manager was created by PECCI's By-Laws and he was appointed by the Board, making his dismissal an intra-cooperative dispute.

• "A complaint for illegal dismissal filed by a cooperative officer is an intra-cooperative dispute, which is within the jurisdiction of the CDA." — This passage states the ratio decidendi of the case, defining the jurisdictional boundary between labor tribunals and the CDA for cooperative officers.
• "It has been held that an 'office' is created by the charter of the corporation and the officer is elected by the directors or stockholders. On the other hand, an 'employee' usually occupies no office and generally is employed not by action of the directors or stockholders but by the managing officer of the corporation who also determines the compensation to be paid to such employee." — This quotation from Tabang vs. National Labor Relations Commission provides the canonical distinction between an officer and an employee, which is the controlling test for determining jurisdiction in this context.

• Tabang vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 334 Phil. 424 (1997) — Cited to differentiate between an "officer" and an "employee," establishing the two-pronged test for determining cooperative officer status.
• Ellao vs. Batangas I Electric Cooperative Inc. (BATELEC I), 835 Phil. 914 (2018) — Followed as applicable precedent where a cooperative General Manager's illegal dismissal was ruled an intra-cooperative controversy beyond labor tribunal jurisdiction.
• Malcaba vs. ProHealth Pharma Philippines, Inc., 832 Phil. 460 (2018) — Followed to support the proposition that adjudication of money claims before labor tribunals is void for lack of jurisdiction when the dispute is intra-corporate or intra-cooperative.

• Article 5, Republic Act No. 9520 (Cooperative Code) — Defines "Officers of the Cooperatives" to include the general manager or chief executive officer. Used to establish that Uson's position as General Manager is a cooperative officer position.
• Article 42, Republic Act No. 9520 (Cooperative Code) — Provides that the board of directors shall elect or appoint other officers of the cooperative in accordance with their by-laws, and that officers shall not be removed except for cause after due hearing. Applied to show Uson's appointment and security of tenure as a cooperative officer.
• Article 137, Republic Act No. 9520 (Cooperative Code) — Mandates that intra-cooperative disputes be settled through conciliation, mediation, and ultimately voluntary arbitration with the CDA. Used to establish the CDA's jurisdiction.
• Section 4(T), Republic Act No. 11364 (CDA Charter of 2019) — Mandates the CDA to hear and decide intra-cooperative disputes, with decisions appealable to the CA. Reinforced the CDA's jurisdiction over the dispute.

Gesmundo, C.J. (Chairperson), Zalameda, and Marquez, JJ., concurred. Rosario, J., on official leave.