ERNESTO M. APODACA, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, JOSE M.

MIRASOL and
INTRANS PHILS.,INC., respondents.
G.R. No. !!"# Apri$ %, %##
&ACTS '
Petitioner was employed in Respondent Corporation.
On August 28, 1985, respondent Jose M. Mirasol persuaded petitioner to sus!rie to 1,5"" s#ares o$ respondent
!orporation atP1""."" per s#are or a total o$ P15","""."". %e made an initial payment o$ P&',5""."".
On (eptemer 1, 19'5, petitioner was appointed President and )eneral Manager o$ t#e respondent !orporation.
%owe*er, on January 2, 198+, #e resigned.
On ,e!emer 19, 198+, petitioner instituted wit# t#e -.RC a !omplaint against pri*ate respondents $or t#e
payment o$ #is unpaid wages, #is !ost o$ li*ing allowan!e, t#e alan!e o$ #is gasoline and representation e/penses
and #is onus !ompensation $or 198+.
Petitioner and pri*ate respondents sumitted t#eir position papers to t#e laor ariter.
Pri*ate respondents admitted t#at t#ere is due to petitioner t#e amount o$ P1',"+"."' ut t#is was applied to t#e
unpaid alan!e o$ #is sus!ription in t#e amount o$ P95,0&9.9&.
Petitioner 1uestioned t#e set2o$$ alleging t#at t#ere was no !all or noti!e $or t#e payment o$ t#e unpaid sus!ription
and t#at, a!!ordingly, t#e alleged oligation is not en$or!eale.
3n a de!ision dated April 28, 198', t#e laor ariter sustained t#e !laim o$ petitioner $or P1',"+"."' on t#e ground
t#at t#e employer #as no rig#t to wit##old payment o$ wages already yearned under Arti!le 1"& o$ t#e .aor Code.
4pon t#e appeal o$ t#e pri*ate respondents to puli! respondent -.RC, t#e de!ision o$ t#e laor ariter was
re*ersed in a de!ision dated (eptemer 18, 198'.
5#e -.RC #eld t#at a sto!6#older w#o $ails to pay #is unpaid sus!ription on !all e!omes a detor o$ t#e
!orporation and t#at t#e set2o$$ o$ said oligation against t#e wages and ot#ers due to petitioner is not !ontrary to
law, morals and puli! poli!y.
ISS(ES'
1. 7#ere -.RC #as 8urisdi!tion to resol*e a !laim $or non2payment o$ sto!6 sus!riptions to a !orporation.
2. 3$ so, w#et#er or not an oligation arising t#ere $rom e o$$set against money !laim o$ an employee against t#e
employer.
R(LING'
1. -.RC #as no 8urisdi!tion to determine su!# intra2!orporate dispute etween t#e sto!6#older and t#e !orporation as
in t#e matter o$ unpaid sus!riptions. 5#is !ontro*ersy is wit#in t#e e/!lusi*e 8urisdi!tion o$ t#e (e!urities and
9/!#ange Commission.
2. -o. t#e unpaid sus!riptions are not due and payale until a !all is made y t#e !orporation $or payment. Pri*ate
respondents #a*e not presented a resolution o$ t#e oard o$ dire!tors o$ Respondent Corporation !alling $or t#e
payment o$ t#e unpaid sus!riptions. 3t does not e*en appear t#at a noti!e o$ su!# !all #as een sent to petitioner
y t#e respondent !orporation. As t#ere was no noti!e or !all $or t#e payment o$ unpaid sus!riptions, t#e same
is not yet due and payale. 9*en i$ t#ere was a !all $or payment, t#e -.RC !annot *alidly set it o$$ against t#e
wages and ot#er ene$its due petitioner. Arti!le 11& o$ t#e .aor Code allows su!#
adedu!tion $rom t#e wages o$ t#e employees y t#e employer, only in t#ree instan!es.