¿Relación laboral encubierta de un gerente general?: Informe jurídico sobre la Resolución 17 recaída en el Expediente 02792-2019-0-3202-JR-LA-01

Abstract

El presente informe jurídico tiene como objeto resolver el caso analizado en la Resolución 17 recaída en el Expediente 02792-2019-0-3202-JR-LA-01. En este, el problema jurídico principal consiste en determinar si debe reconocerse un vínculo laboral entre el señor Villanueva y Corporación de Industrias Stanford S.A.C. (CISSAC) durante el periodo en el que aquel fue nombrado como gerente general de la demandada conforme a su Partida Registral. Para resolver este caso, es preciso analizar dos periodos diferenciados, considerando que en 2013 CISSAC celebró un contrato de gerencia con VM Consulting S.A.C. (que era de propiedad del demandante y a su vez su empleador) en base al artículo 193 de la Ley General de Sociedades. Sobre el primer periodo, se concluye que el demandante no acreditó haber prestado servicios efectivos, constituyendo lo que puede denominarse un gerente general “nominativo”; es decir, que no administra efectivamente la sociedad, si bien tiene facultades de representación en virtud de su nombramiento. Sobre el segundo periodo, se concluye que el contrato de gerencia se desnaturalizó, conforme a la regulación laboral de la tercerización de servicios, por verificarse que el demandante habría prestado servicios subordinados, revelando que el servicio externalizado no sería autónomo ni íntegro. En consecuencia, en lo referido al segundo periodo, se considera que debe reconocerse un vínculo laboral entre el demandante y CISSAC.

The objective of this legal report is to solve the case analyzed in Resolution 17 of File 02792-2019-0-3202-JR-LA-01. In this case, the main legal issue is to determine whether an employment relationship between Mr. Villanueva and Corporación de Industrias Stanford S.A.C. (CISSAC) should be recognized during the period in which he was appointed as general manager of the defendant according to its Registry Record. To resolve this case, it is necessary to analyze two differentiated periods, considering that in 2013 CISSAC entered into a management agreement with VM Consulting S.A.C. (which was owned by the plaintiff and was at the same time his employer) based on Article 193 of the General Corporation Law. Regarding the first period, it is concluded that the plaintiff did not prove to have rendered effective services, constituting what can be called a “nominative“ general manager; that is, he did not effectively manage the company, although he had powers of representation by virtue of his appointment. Regarding the second period, it is concluded that the management agreement was denaturalized, according to the labor regulation of the outsourcing of services, because it was verified that the plaintiff would have rendered subordinate services, revealing that the outsourced service would not be autonomous nor whole. Consequently, with regard to the second period, it is considered that an employment relationship between the plaintiff and CISSAC must be recognized.