SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 197484, September 16, 2015
GERARDO A. CARIQUE, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE SCOUT VETERANS SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION AGENCY, INC., AND/OR RICARDO BONA AND SEVERO** SANTIAGO, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assails the November 30, 2010 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 99967, which denied the Petition for Certiorari filed therewith and affirmed the October 30, 2006 Decision3 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissing petitioner Gerardo A. Carique's (petitioner) Complaint for illegal dismissal against respondents Philippine Scout Veterans Security and Investigation Agency, Inc. (respondent agency) and/or Ricardo Bona (Bona) and Severo Santiago (Santiago). Also assailed is the June 22, 2011 Resolution4 of the CA denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.5chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Antecedent Facts
On November 8,1990, petitioner was hired as security guard by respondent agency owned by respondent Santiago and managed by respondent Bona. He was thereafter assigned/posted to respondent agency's several clients, the last of which was at National Bookstore - Rosario, Pasig Branch.6 On October 28, 2002, petitioner was relieved from his post at the National Bookstore - Rosario, Pasig Branch and was replaced by Security Guard Roel Juan pursuant to a rotation policy being implemented by respondent agency.
On May 6, 2003, petitioner filed an illegal dismissal case against respondents before the Labor Arbiter, docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 00-05-05393-2003. The complaint was subsequently amended to include his claims for illegal deduction, damages and refund of cash bond.7
Petitioner alleged that on October 30, 2002, shortly after his relief, he reported to respondent agency's office and inquired about his next assignment. He was, however, informed of the lack of available assignment. He then reported continuously but was repeatedly advised to wait for a new posting. He was thus surprised when on March 9, 2003, he received a memorandum8 from respondent agency requiring him to explain his Absence Without Leave (AWOL) since November 30, 2002. He submitted an explanation9 on the charge, but no assignment at all was given to him. On May 5, 2003, he again returned, but was compelled to acknowledge receipt of a memorandum10 dated April 30, 2003 requiring him to explain his unjustified refusal to accept the posts offered to him and his AWOL. Attached to the memorandum were three Special Security Detail (SSD)11 which required him to report for assignment at the National Bookstore, SM Bicutan, Taguig on March 11, 2003 and at East Asia Diesel Power Corporation and Country Space Condominium on March 17, 2003. Contending that the SSDs attached to the memorandum were fabricated by respondent agency in order to evade liability, petitioner refused to acknowledge receipt of the said memorandum. These events led him to file an illegal dismissal case against respondents.
Respondents denied having dismissed petitioner, let alone illegally, and alleged that petitioner was relieved from his post because of a rotation policy being implemented as required by respondent agency's clients; that this lawful practice of relieving security personnel from their posts did not amount to terminating the security personnel from employment but was simply meant to place them on floating status while awaiting a new assignment; that petitioner was offered an assignment for posting at the National Bookstore - SM Bicutan Branch as evidenced by SSD12 dated March 11, 2003 some five months after his relief; that this offer was, however, refused by petitioner for no known reason; and, that after five days, petitioner was again offered another assignment at the Country Space Condominium at Buendia, Makati as shown in the SSD13 dated March 17, 2003 but petitioner rejected this second offer anew for no reason at all. Hence, respondents issued a memorandum dated April 30, 2003 requiring petitioner to explain his actions. Two officers of respondent agency, Ermelo Basal (Duty Officer Basal) and Fernando Amor (Investigator General Amor), submitted sworn statements14 attesting to the fact that the offers for posting were refused by petitioner.
In his reply, petitioner averred that he did not consider the SSDs as valid offers for his posting; that there were apparent discrepancies between the three SSDs submitted by him and the two SSDs presented by respondents; and, that the conflicting entries between the SSDs submitted by him vis-a-vis those submitted by respondents were suggestive of irregularities in their issuances.
Ruling of the Labor Arbiter
In a Decision15 dated April 30, 2004, the Labor Arbiter declared petitioner to have been illegally dismissed on the ground that respondents repeatedly denied petitioner's demands/requests for assignment/posting. The Labor Arbiter thus ordered respondents to pay petitioner separation pay of P45,000.00, partial backwages of P90,000.00, and to refund petitioner's cash bond in the amount of P17,840.00.
Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission
In their appeal before the NLRC, respondents averred that the Labor Arbiter gravely erred in relying on petitioner's baseless allegations and disregarding their convincing countervailing evidence consisting of the SSDs and the sworn statements of respondent agency's officers attesting to the fact that petitioner refused to accept his new assignment. Respondents thus sought the invalidation of the Labor Arbiter's award for separation pay, backwages, and the refund of cash bond.
In a Decision16 dated October 30, 2006, the NLRC granted respondents' appeal and annulled the Labor Arbiter's judgment. The NLRC was convinced that petitioner had refused new assignments. The NLRC found that petitioner never denied having received copies of the SSDs as well as the memorandum asking him to explain his refusal to accept the offered assignments. The NLRC noted that petitioner, far from complying with the memorandum directing him to explain his alleged refusal, chose to ignore the memorandum and instead filed a case against respondents. The NLRC stressed that all that petitioner did was to point out alleged discrepancies and conflicting entries in the SSDs but did not categorically deny that he received these detail orders. The NLRC also noted that petitioner even adopted these documents as part of the evidence he submitted before the Labor Arbiter. The NLRC, thus, concluded that petitioner was not at all dismissed; instead, he rejected the assignments given to him.
In any event, the NLRC ordered the refund of petitioner's cash bond in view of respondents' admission that the cash bond should be remitted upon severance of employment and upon petitioner's manifestation that he was no longer interested to work for respondent agency. The dispositive portion of the NLRC Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, respondents' appeal is hereby GRANTED, the appealed Decision is hereby SET ASIDE and a new one entered dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. Respondents are, however, ordered to refund to complainant his cash bond in the amount of P17,840.00.Petitioner moved for reconsideration which was denied by the NLRC in its Resolution18 of June 12, 2007.
SO ORDERED.17
Endnotes:
* Per Special Order No. 2191 dated September 16, 2015.
** Also referred to as Severeno and Severino in some parts of the records.
1Rollo, pp. 10-31.
2 CA rollo, pp. 153-162; penned by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam and concurred in by Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Danton Q. Bueser.
3 Id. at 107-112; penned by Commissioner Perlita B. Velasco and concurred in by Commissioner Romeo L. Go.
4 Id. at 184-185.
5 Id. at 163-168.
6 Memorandum for Assignment dated April 15, 1999, id. at 57.
7 Id. at 53-54; 17.
8 Id. at 27.
9 Id. at 28.
10 Id. at 29.
11 SSD dated March 17, 2003 requiring petitioner to report for assignment to East Asia Diesel Power Corporation, id. at 30; SSD dated March 17, 2003 requiring petitioner to report for assignment to Country Space Condominium, id. at 31; and SSD dated March 11, 2003 requiring petitioner to report for assignment to National Bookstore, SM Bicutan Branch, id. at 32.
12 Id. at 58.
13 Id. at 59.
14 Id. at 60, 78.
15 Id. at 80-87, penned by Labor Arbiter Aliman D. Mangandog.
16 Id. at 107-112.
17 Id. at 111.
18 Id. at 119-120.
19 Id. at 2-16.
20 Id. at 153-162.
21 Id. at 184-185.
22 ART. 286. When employment not deemed terminated. — The bonafide suspension of the operation of a business or undertaking for a period not exceeding six (6) months, or the fulfillment by the employee of a military or civic duty shall not terminate employment.
In all such cases, the employer shall reinstate the employee to his former position without loss of seniority rights if he indicates his desire to resume his work not later than one (1) month from the resumption of operations of his employer or from his relief from the military or civic duty.
23Cañedo v. Kampilan Security and Detective Agency, Inc., G.R. No. 179326, July 31, 2013, 702 SCRA 647, 658.
24Noblejas v. Italian Maritime Academy Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 207888, June 9, 2014, 725 SCRA 570, 580-581.
25Villanueva v. Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc., 605 Phil. 926, 937 (2009).
26Sentinel Security Agency, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 356 Phil. 434, 443 (1998).
27Leopard Security and Investigation Agency v. Quitoy, G.R. No. 186344, February 20, 2013, 691 SCRA 440, 449.
28 CA rollo, pp. 163-168.
29Magnolia Dairy Products Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 322 Phil. 508, 516 (1996).
30Balitaosan v. The Secretary of Education, 457 Phil. 300, 304 (2003).
31Morales v. Metropolitan Bank, and Trust Company, G.R. No. 182475, November 21, 2012, 686 SCRA 132, 148.
32Peckson v. Robinsons Supermarket Corporation, G.R. No. 198534, July 3, 2013, 700 SCRA 668, 679-682.
33Salvaloza v. National Labor Relations Commission, 650 Phil. 543, 557 (2010).
34 Id.
35The Peninsula Manila v. Alipio, 577 Phil. 420, 428 (2008).
36Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Co. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 338 Phil. 1093, 1106 (1997).