Case Digest (G.R. No. 93476)
Facts:
The case involves A'Prime Security Services, Inc. as the petitioner and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Labor Arbiter Oswaldo Lorenzo, and private respondent Florentino Lising. Lising was employed as a security guard by A'Prime Security Services, Inc. and was assigned to the Regional Relay Facilities (RRF) at the Clark Air Base in Angeles City. On September 8, 1988, Alan E. Gentile, the Assistant Regional Security Officer of the U.S. Embassy, requested Lising's relief from his position due to multiple instances of him being found asleep while on duty. An internal investigation by the petitioner on September 12, 1988, confirmed that Lising had been caught sleeping on duty at least four times, although he only admitted to sleeping once on July 16, 1988. Following this, the petitioner sent a letter on September 14, 1988, terminating Lising's services effective September 7, 1988. After learning of his relief, Lising went on absence without official...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 93476)
Facts:
Employment and Assignment:
Private respondent Florentino Lising was a security guard employed by petitioner A’Prime Security Services, Inc., assigned to the Regional Relay Facilities (RRF), a U.S. Mission facility at Clark Air Base, Angeles City.
Incident and Investigation:
On September 8, 1988, Asst. Regional Security Officer Alan E. Gentile of the U.S. Embassy requested Lising’s relief as guard supervisor after he was found sleeping on duty. An investigation by the petitioner confirmed that Lising had slept on duty multiple times, though Lising admitted in sworn statements to only one instance.
Termination of Assignment:
On September 14, 1988, the petitioner informed RRF that Lising’s services under the contract were terminated effective September 7, 1988.
AWOL and Warnings:
Lising went on absence without official leave (AWOL) after learning of his relief. The petitioner sent him letters on September 28 and October 13, 1988, warning him to report back or face termination. Despite returning briefly, Lising went AWOL again after being informed of his transfer to another client.
Complaint Filed:
On October 13, 1988, Lising filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of overtime pay, seeking separation pay and back wages instead of reinstatement.
Labor Arbiter’s Decision:
On December 14, 1988, Labor Arbiter Oswald B. Lorenzo ruled that Lising was illegally dismissed and ordered his reinstatement with full back wages, dismissing the overtime pay claim for lack of basis.
NLRC’s Decision:
On February 5, 1990, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) modified the decision, holding that Lising’s dismissal was for cause but lacked due process. It awarded separation pay equivalent to one month’s salary for every year of service and affirmed the dismissal of the overtime pay claim.
Issue:
- Whether Florentino Lising was illegally dismissed.
- Whether Lising was entitled to separation pay despite his abandonment of work.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court granted the petitioner’s petition and reversed the NLRC’s decision. It held that Lising was not illegally dismissed but instead abandoned his employment. Consequently, he was not entitled to separation pay.
Ratio:
Abandonment of Work:
Abandonment requires both the intention to abandon and overt acts indicating the employee’s disinterest in continuing employment. Lising’s repeated AWOL and refusal to report for duty after warnings demonstrated abandonment. His filing of a complaint seeking separation pay, not reinstatement, further reinforced this conclusion.Termination vs. Reassignment:
The petitioner did not terminate Lising’s employment but only relieved him from his assignment at Clark Air Base. Reassignment is a management prerogative, and Lising’s refusal to accept a new assignment constituted abandonment.Separation Pay:
Separation pay is granted in cases of valid termination due to retrenchment, closure, or disease, or as a measure of social justice for dismissals not involving serious misconduct. Since Lising abandoned his work voluntarily, he was not entitled to separation pay.Social Justice:
Social justice cannot protect an employee who, despite being given an opportunity to return to work, chooses to abandon their position.
Conclusion:
The Court ruled that Lising abandoned his employment and was not entitled to separation pay. The NLRC’s decision was reversed for grave abuse of discretion.