|
JOSE P. ARTIFICIO, Petitioner, |
G.R. No. 172988
|
|
- versus - NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION, RP GUARDIANS SECURITY AGENCY, INC., JUAN VICTOR K.
LAURILLA, ALBERTO AGUIRRE, and ANTONIO A. ANDRES,
Respondents. |
Present: Chairperson, VELASCO, JR., LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, PEREZ, JJ. Promulgated: July 26, 2010 |
|
|
|
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
PEREZ, J.:
The instant petition for certiorari under Rule 45 seeks to set
aside the Decision[1]
dated
The pertinent facts
are as follows:
Petitioner Jose P. Artificio
was employed as security guard by respondent RP Guardians Security Agency, Inc.,
a corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine Laws and likewise
duly licensed to engage in the security agency business.
Sometime in June 2002,
Artificio had a heated argument with a fellow security guard, Merlino B. Edu
(Edu). On
On
The report reads:
Sir:
On
or about 1710 hrs.
On even date, Andres issued a Memorandum[8]
temporarily relieving Artificio from his post and placing him under preventive
suspension pending investigation for conduct unbecoming a security guard, such
as, abandonment of post during night shift duty, light threats and
irregularities in the observance of proper relieving time. He also directed Artificio to report to the
office of RP Guardians Security Agency, Inc. and submit his written answer
immediately upon receipt of the memorandum.
In another memorandum, Andres
informed Artificio that a hearing will be held on
Without waiting for the hearing
to be held, Artificio filed on 5 August 2002, a complaint for illegal
dismissal, illegal suspension, non-payment of overtime pay, holiday pay,
premium pay for holiday and rest days, 13th month pay, and
damages. He also prayed for payment of
separation pay in lieu of
reinstatement.[10]
After hearing, the Labor
Arbiter rendered a decision dated
On
Another Memo, likewise dated July
29, 2002, and also received on the same day by complainant directed him “to
appear before this Office on Monday, August 12, 2002 (10:00 A.M.) to answer the
charges leveled against you x x x.”
A sensible person who received two
separate Memo directing him first to “answer in writing immediately”; and,
second, to appear on
Feeling aggrieved and confused, he
sought the assistance of this tribunal to air his predicament and plight. This should not be taken against him. It should be borne in mind that when he was
directed to immediately answer in writing, he did not stand on equal footing
with his superiors.
From the foregoing, the suspensions
of complainant, is illegal. And under
the peculiar circumstances, this illegal suspension ripened into an illegal
dismissal.
Even as the complainant does not
seek reinstatement when he filed this cases, he is nevertheless entitled to
backwages, albeit limited. Complainant
is also entitled to separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, the computation
thereof to be reckoned not from 1979 but only from 1986.
As to money claims, the supporting
documents submitted by the respondents prove that other than the payment of
ECOLA and the refund of the P30.00 monthly Trust Fund, herein complainant had
been duly paid of his money claims.[11]
The fallo of the decision
rendered by the Labor Arbiter reads:
WHEREFORE,
in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered declaring respondents
guilty of illegal suspension/lay-off and illegal dismissal.
Since the complainant does not seek
reinstatement, he is entitled to limited backwages and separation pay.
Respondent [RP]. Guardian Security
Agency, Inc., is hereby ordered to pay complainant as follows:
1. Limited
backwages computed from P217,033.79;
2. In
lieu of reinstatement, separation pay equivalent to one-half (1/2) month’s
salary for every year of service computed from 1986 in the amount of P81,507.60;
3. ECOLA
from P6,628.50[;] and
4. Refund
of P30.00 monthly contribution to Trust Fund in the amount of P5,970.00;
5. Ten percent (10%) of the total award as
attorney’s fees in the amount of P31,113.99.
All other claims herein sought and prayed for are hereby
denied for lack of legal and factual bases.[12]
On appeal, the NLRC, in a Decision[13]
dated
x x x While
it is true that preventive suspension can ripen into a constructive dismissal
when such goes beyond the 30 day maximum period allowable by law, such is not
prevailing in the case at bar as it was complainant who chose to file a
complaint and have due process before the courts of law. It was complainant who terminated the
relationship with respondents by asking for separation pay in lieu of
reinstatement when the fact of dismissal has not yet happened. From the documents presented, complainant was
put on preventive suspension pending investigation of company violations which
were supported by documentary evidences on
In the end, the
NLRC decreed:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision
of the Labor Arbiter is hereby VACATED and SET ASIDE and a new
one entered, ordering respondents to reinstate complainant to his former
position without loss of seniority rights. All other claims are hereby dismissed for lack
of merit.[15]
The motion for reconsideration
filed by Artificio was denied for lack of merit by the NLRC in a resolution
dated
Artificio next filed a petition
for certiorari before the Court of
Appeals docketed as CA G.R. SP No. 88188. On
I.
WHETHER
OR NOT PETITIONER MAY BE TERMINATED FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT ON THE VERY DATE HE
RECEIVED A LETTER FOR HIS PURPORTED RELIEF WITHOUT FIRST BEING GIVEN AN
II.
WHETHER
OR NOT PETITIONER MAY BE VALIDLY SUSPENDED FOR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD WITHOUT
BEING CONSIDERED DISMISSED CONSTRUCTIVELY FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT.
III.
WHETHER
OR NOT THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE ASSAILED
RESOLUTIONS OF THE NLRC WHICH MISTAKENLY APPLIED THE RULING IN GLOBE-MACKAY AND
RADIO VS. NLRC, G.R. NO. 82511,
IV.
WHETHER
OR NOT AN EMPLOYEE WHO LOYALLY AND EFFICIENTLY SERVED HIS EMPLOYER FOR TWENTY
THREE (23) YEARS BE VALIDLY TERMINATED FROM EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT VIOLATING HIS
RIGHTS TO DUE [PROCESS] ON THE PRETEXT OF A PURPORTED CHARGE WHICH DID NOT SET
FORTH THE DETAILS, PLACE, AND TIME OF THEIR ALLEGED COMMISSION.
V.
WHETHER
OR NOT THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVING
CREDENCE TO THE FINDINGS OF FACTS OF THE LABOR ARBITER WHICH HAS A FIRST HAND
AND DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE PARTY-LITIGANTS.
VI.
WHETHER
OR NOT AN EMPLOYEE WHOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS EMPLOYER WAS STRAINED BY THE
FILING OF A LEGITIMATE LABOR COMPLAINT BE CORRECTLY ORDERED REINSTATED.[18]
Artificio maintains that he was
illegally suspended since his preventive suspension was for an indefinite
period and was imposed without investigation.
He also argues that he was illegally dismissed because the charges
against him were couched in general and broad terms. Further, he was not given any notice
requiring him to explain his side.
Respondents counter that Artificio
was not dismissed but merely placed under preventive suspension pending investigation
of the charges against him.
Sections 8 and 9 of Rule XXIII,
Implementing Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code
provides:
SEC. 8. Preventive suspension. – The
employer may place the worker concerned under preventive suspension if his
continued employment poses a serious and imminent threat to the life or
property of the employer or of his co-workers.
SEC. 9. Period of suspension. – No
preventive suspension shall last longer than thirty (30) days. The employer shall thereafter reinstate the
worker in his former or in a substantially equivalent position or the employer
may extend the period of suspension provided that during the period of
extension, he pays the wages and other benefits due to the worker. In such case, the worker shall not be bound
to reimburse the amount paid to him during the extension if the employer
decides, after completion of the hearing, to dismiss the worker.
As succinctly stated above, preventive
suspension is justified where the employee’s continued employment poses a
serious and imminent threat to the life or property of the employer or of the
employee’s co-workers. Without this kind
of threat, preventive suspension is not proper.[19]
In this case, Artificio’s
preventive suspension was justified since he was employed as a security guard
tasked precisely to safeguard respondents’ client. His continued presence in respondents’ or its
client’s premises poses a serious threat to respondents, its employees and
client in light of the serious allegation of conduct unbecoming a security
guard such as abandonment of post during night shift duty, light threats and
irregularities in the observance of proper relieving time.
Besides, as the employer,
respondent has the right to regulate, according to its discretion and best
judgment, all aspects of employment, including work assignment, working
methods, processes to be followed, working regulations, transfer of employees,
work supervision, lay-off of workers and the discipline, dismissal and recall
of workers. Management has the
prerogative to discipline its employees and to impose appropriate penalties on
erring workers pursuant to company rules and regulations.
This Court has upheld a
company’s management prerogatives so long as they are exercised in good faith
for the advancement of the employer’s interest and not for the purpose of
defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws or
under valid agreements.[20]
This delineation of management
prerogatives is relevant to the observation of the NLRC that:
x x x even
assuming that one of the fellow guards, PSG Edu had an axe to grind against
complainant that’s why he wrote the letter asking for the latter’s
investigation on certain violations he has committed, the allegation that
complainant committed irregularity on company’s policy on relieving time was
amply supported by the logbook. In fact,
the labor arbiter in her decision even cited that accusation boils [down] to
the alleged irregularity of complainant in the observance of relieving of
time. Further, on
These observations can no
longer be disturbed. They are now
established facts before us.
Significantly, Artificio regrettably
chose not to present his side at the administrative hearing scheduled to look
into the factual issues that accompanied the accusation against him. In fact, he avoided the investigation into
the charges by filing his illegal dismissal complaint ahead of the scheduled
investigation. He, on his own decided
that his preventive suspension was in fact illegal dismissal and that he is
entitled to backwages and separation pay.
Indeed, Artificio would even reject reinstatement revealing his bent to
have his own way through his own means.
As aptly noted by the NLRC, Artificio preempted the investigation that
could have afforded him the due process of which he would then say he was
denied.
That resolved, we next proceed
to the benefits due Artificio.
As already mentioned, after Artificio
was placed under preventive suspension on
Nonetheless, given the attendant circumstances in
this case, namely, that Artificio had been working with the company for a
period of sixteen (16) years and without any previous derogatory record, the
ends of social and compassionate justice would be served if Artificio be given
some equitable relief in the form of separation pay.[22]
Artificio is entitled to
separation pay considering that while reinstatement is an option, Artificio
himself has never, at anytime after the notice of preventive suspension
intended to remain in the employ of private respondents.
WHEREFORE,
the instant petition is PARTIALLY
GRANTED. The Decision dated
No costs.
|
SO ORDERED. JOSE Associate Justice |
|
|
WE CONCUR: RENATO C.
CORONA Chief Justice Chairperson |
|
|
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
|
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice |
|
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions
in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon, with Associate Justices Edgardo P. Cruz and Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente, concurring. Rollo, pp. 25-37.
[2]
[3] CA rollo, pp. 18-25.
[4] Rollo, pp. 79-92.
[5]
[6] CA rollo, p. 83.
[7] Rollo, p. 87.
[8] 1. References:
a) RPGSAI Circular No. 2 dtd
b) Attached letter request for investigation
fm PSG Edu dtd
c) Verbal instruction from client
2. In
connection with the above references, you are hereby temporarily relieved from
your post and placed under preventive suspension effective
3. Further,
you are directed to report to this Office and submit an answer in writing
immediately upon receipt of this memo, to the following offenses to wit:
a) Conduct
unbecoming of a Security Guard
Facts:
Abandonment of post during night
shift duty
Light threats
Irregularities in the observance of
proper relieving time
which are contrary to the
pertinent provisions of Agency Policies and RA 5487, as amended.
For your guidance and strict compliance.
(SGD) PSUPT ANTONIO A. ANDRES (inact)
Admin/Oprns
Manager
Acknowledge Receipt
By (SGD) JOSE P. ARTIFICIO
Signature above printed name (Please
print legibly)
Date and Time 1400 Hr
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19] Maricalum
Mining Corporation v. Decorion, G.R. No. 158637, 12 April 2006, 487 SCRA
182, 188; Valiao v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 146621, 30 July 2004, 435 SCRA 543, 554.
[20] Challenge Socks Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 165268, 8 November 2005, 474 SCRA 356, 363.
[21] Rollo, pp. 119-120.
[22] Tanala
v. National Labor Relations Commission, 322 Phil. 342, 349-350 (1996) cited
in Solid Bank v. National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. 165951,