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.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:PUCP/oai:tesis.pucp.edu.pe:20.500.12404/25624 |
| Date | 07 August 2023 |
| Creators | Sobrados Burgos, Rosa Juliana |
| Contributors | García Landaburu, María Katia |
| Publisher | Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, PE |
| Source Sets | Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú |
| Language | Spanish |
| Detected Language | Spanish |
| Type | info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis |
| Format | application/pdf, application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess |
Page generated in 0.0025 seconds